Skip to content
Trout Walk Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Trout Walk Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$166k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2025.

Health$131kEnvironment$65kArts & Culture$55kFood & Nutrition$55kRecreation & Sports$55k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $100k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
$20,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$2.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GREAT OAK EQUINE ASSISTED PROGRAMS$60,000
GLYNWOOD CENTER INC$20,000
HISTORIC SUGARTOWN INCORPORATED$20,000
PALISADES PARKS CONSERVANCY INC$20,000
WAVE HILL INCORPORATED$20,000
OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC$10,000
INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION$10,000
KENT AND QUEEN ANNES RESCUE SQUAD INC$6,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY23–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 36% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%HISTORIC SUGARTOWN INCORPORATED: $20k → 6%GLYNWOOD CENTER INC: $20k → 6%OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC: $10k → 17%WAVE HILL INCORPORATED: $20k → 28%INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $10k → 6%KENT AND QUEEN ANNES RESCUE SQUAD INC: $6k → 12%HISTORIC SUGARTOWN INCORPORATED: $20k → 6%GLYNWOOD CENTER INC: $20k → 6%WAVE HILL INCORPORATED: $20k → 28%INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $5k → 6%HISTORIC SUGARTOWN INCORPORATED: $15k → 6%GLYNWOOD CENTER INC: $15k → 6%WAVE HILL INCORPORATED: $15k → 28%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$345k · 6 repeat orgs$16k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
2

Total granted

$345k
$16k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+219%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’23’24’25
HealthEnvironmentHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsPublic BenefitOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • GO
    GREAT OAK EQUINE ASSISTED PROGRAMS
    2× · 2024–2025 · $110k · revenue 0%
  • WH
    WAVE HILL INCORPORATED
    3× · 2023–2025 · $55k · revenue +4%
  • HS
    HISTORIC SUGARTOWN INCORPORATED
    3× · 2023–2025 · $55k · revenue -10%

Funded once

  • OS
    OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2025 · $10k · revenue +219%
  • KQ
    KENT & QUEEN ANNE'S RESCUE SQUADINgraduated
    one grant, 2025 · $6k · revenue +31%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Oaklawn Farm Historic Foundation
Arts & Culture
2
Galisteo Basin Open Space Preserve
Environment
3
Gordonston Park Preserv Assoc Inc
—
4
Ridgeview Conservancy
Environment
5
Greenbelt Conservancy Inc

The Greenbelt Conservancy (the "Greenbelt"), the second of New York City's Flagship Parks, consists of over 2,800 acres of public and privatge land (greater than the combined acreage of Central Park and Prospect Park) in the center of…

Environment
6
Massachusetts Outdoor Heritage Foundation Inc Attn Susan Sacco
—
7
Highlands Ranch Backcountry Conservation and Education Fund
Philanthropy
8
Historical Preservation Inc
—
9
The Trustees of Reservations

Overview - founded in boston by pioneering landscape architect and open space visionary charles eliot in 1891, the trustees is the nation's first and the commonwealth's largest conservation and preservation nonprofit.

Environment
10
The Gardens At Palmdale
Recreation & Sports
11
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Philanthropy
12
Secretariat Heritage Center
Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Open Space Institute Inc; the most unlike its peers is Historic Sugartown Incorporated. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GREAT OAK EQUINE ASSISTED PROGRAMS: $110,000 · Human ServicesGREAT OAK EQUINE ASSISTED PROGRAMSWAVE HILL INCORPORATED: $55,000 · EnvironmentWAVE HILL INCORPORAT…OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentOPEN SPACE INSTITUTE…HISTORIC SUGARTOWN INCORPORATED: $55,000 · OtherHISTORIC SUGARTOW…PALISADES PARKS CONSERVANCY INC: $55,000 · Recreation & SportsPALISADES PARKS C…GLYNWOOD CENTER INC: $55,000 · Public BenefitGLYNWOOD CENTER I…INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $15,000 · HealthKENT & QUEEN ANNE'S RESCUE SQUADIN: $6,000 · Health
Human Services$110,000Environment$65,000Other$55,000Recreation & Sports$55,000Public Benefit$55,000Health$21,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGREAT OAK EQUINE ASSISTED PROGRAMS: $110,000 over 2y, 8.5% of budgetWAVE HILL INCORPORATED: $55,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetHISTORIC SUGARTOWN INCORPORATED: $55,000 over 3y, 6.1% of budgetPALISADES PARKS CONSERVANCY INC: $55,000 over 3y, 5.1% of budgetGLYNWOOD CENTER INC: $55,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetINOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Trout Walk Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Trout Walk Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 8 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Trout Walk’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home