Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Private foundation

True North Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$2.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$961k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
0197% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.

Environment$16MPhilanthropy$3.1MArts & Culture$3.0MCommunity Improvement$1.5MFood & Nutrition$875kCivil Rights$770kAnimals$455kHuman Services$358kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k5 grants · $553k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.6M
$150,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION$961,087
WESTERN ORGANZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECT$360,000
EARTHWORKS$250,000
THE NORTHERN CENTER$150,000
ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS$133,000
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY$100,000
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE$90,000
THE SIERRA FUND$80,000
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

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

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $318k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CURRY SENIOR CENTER: $25k → 10%DAYBREAK ADULT CARE CENTER: $30k → 10%SAMARITAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER: $15k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $60k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $50k → 10%SAMARITAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER: $15k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $50k → 10%SAMARITAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER: $10k → 10%SAMARITAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER: $10k → 10%SAMARITAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER: $10k → 10%SAMARITAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER: $10k → 10%SAMARITAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER: $8k → 10%MERCY RETIREMENT & CARE CENTER: $25k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Which US states your grants reach

AK
WA
ID
MT
OR
CA
CO
MD
DE
DC

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 11% of True North Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 31% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 27% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

True North Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 2.8% directed abroad (not shown)

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$23M · 40 repeat orgs$1.8M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +97% since the first grant, against +56% for the ones you funded once.

40 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 34 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

40
22

Total granted

$23M
$1.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+97%
+56%

Still filing today

73%
55%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementCivil RightsFood & NutritionArts & CultureOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • AC
    ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $2.6M · revenue +218%
  • WO
    WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECT
    5× · 2017–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +122%
  • E
    Earthworks
    7× · 2017–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +168%

Funded once

  • WO
    WESTERN ORG OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION FUND
    one grant, 2021 · $580k
  • DR
    Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Incgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $170k · revenue +159%
  • SA
    Southeast Alaska Conservation Council Inc-SEACCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $130k · revenue +56%

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

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…

Environment
2
CalWild

The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.

—
3
California Coastkeeper dba California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Coastkeeper Alliance unites Waterkeeper programs statewide to fight for swimmable, fishable, and drinkable waters for all Californians.

Environment
4
The Alaska Center

We engage, empower, and elect alaskans to stand up for our clean air and water, healthy communities, and a strong democracy.

Environment
5
Nw Energy Coalition

The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…

—
6
California Environmental Justice Alliance

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…

Environment
7
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
8
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
9
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
10
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
11
Cascade Climate Inc

To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.

Environment
12
Amazon Watch Inc

To protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with Indigenous communities in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability, and the preservation of the Amazon Basin's…

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Renewable Energy Alaska Project and the most unlike its peers is Samaritan Neighborhood Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyEnvironmental Conservation …Policy Research and AdvocacyYouth Mentoring ProgramsDevelopmental Disabilities …Local Food System Organizat…Community Foundations
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 33 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%2%<5yr14%0%5–10yr19%12%10–20yr16%37%20–35yr13%40%35–55yr16%9%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%0%5–10yr19%21%10–20yr16%28%20–35yr13%45%35–55yr16%6%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/50
the rest of the field
13%
240,396/1,819,515

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

05the grantee network

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

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 48 of the 68 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
24
Early backer (in before they grew)
47/48
Grantees still filing
38/48
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION — $2,581,087 · EnvironmentALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATIONNEW VENTURE FUND — $1,810,000 · EnvironmentNEW VENTURE FUNDTRUSTEES FOR ALASKA — $880,000 · EnvironmentTRUSTEES FOR ALASKACOOK INLETKEEPER — $640,000 · EnvironmentALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS — $591,000 · EnvironmentSITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY — $580,000 · EnvironmentRESOURCE MEDIA — $578,000 · EnvironmentWESTERN MINING ACTION PROJECT INC — $565,000 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICE — $550,000 · EnvironmentThe Sierra Fund — $518,000 · EnvironmentCENTER FOR SCIENCE IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION — $435,000 · Environment+13 more — $2,495,000 · Environment+13 moreSAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE SEASON OF SHARING — $3,100,000 · OtherSAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE SEASON OF SHARINGIndividual grant recipient — $1,000,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTHE NORTHERN CENTER — $970,000 · OtherTHE NORTHERN CENTERSEACC — $805,000 · OtherSEACCTROUT UNLIMITED — $752,000 · OtherTROUT UNLIMITEDWESTERN ORG OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION FUND — $580,000 · OtherWESTERN ORG OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION…COMMUNITY ALLIANCE WITH FAMILY FARMERS — $550,000 · OtherALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE — $364,000 · Other+22 more — $2,398,683 · Other+22 moreWESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECT — $1,575,000 · Community ImprovementNATIVE MOVEMENT — $230,000 · Community Improvement+1 more — $25,000 · Community ImprovementEarthworks — $1,425,000 · Public BenefitTIDES FOUNDATION — $600,000 · PhilanthropySacramento Region Community Foundation — $150,000 · PhilanthropyTIDES CENTER — $445,000 · Human ServicesSAMARITAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER — $78,000 · Human ServicesDayBreak Adult Care Centers — $30,000 · Human ServicesCURRY SENIOR CENTER — $25,000 · Human ServicesMERCY RETIREMENT AND CARE CENTER — $25,000 · Human ServicesNATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC — $370,000 · Civil RightsDisability Rights Education and Defense Fund Inc — $170,000 · Civil RightsCommunity Living Campaign — $60,000 · Civil Rights
Environment$12,223,087Other$10,519,683Community Improvement$1,830,000Public Benefit$1,425,000Philanthropy$750,000Human Services$603,000Civil Rights$600,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION — $2,581,087 over 8y, 17% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND — $1,810,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetWESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECT — $1,575,000 over 5y, 10% of budgetEarthworks — $1,425,000 over 7y, 5.1% of budgetTRUSTEES FOR ALASKA — $880,000 over 7y, 11% of budgetCOOK INLETKEEPER — $640,000 over 7y, 9.4% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION — $600,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS — $591,000 over 7y, 10% of budgetSITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY — $580,000 over 6y, 10% of budgetRESOURCE MEDIA — $578,000 over 6y, 3.8% of budgetWESTERN MINING ACTION PROJECT INC — $565,000 over 6y, 39% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE — $550,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY ALLIANCE WITH FAMILY FARMERS — $550,000 over 4y, 8.8% of budgetThe Sierra Fund — $518,000 over 7y, 7.7% of budgetTIDES CENTER — $445,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR SCIENCE IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION — $435,000 over 6y, 39% of budgetRENEWABLE ENERGY ALASKA PROJECT — $400,000 over 5y, 12% of budgetNATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC — $370,000 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetPesticide Action Network North America — $350,000 over 4y, 3.6% of budgetIDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE INC — $320,000 over 6y, 2.4% of budgetLEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR SENIORS — $315,000 over 4y, 4.1% of budgetALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE — $300,000 over 3y, 3.1% of budgetADVOCATES FOR THE WEST INC — $290,000 over 6y, 3.3% of budgetALASKA MARINE COMMUNITY COALITION — $280,000 over 5y, 12% of budgetNATIVE MOVEMENT — $230,000 over 4y, 3.8% of budgetTHE ALASKA CENTER EDUCATION FUND — $220,000 over 5y, 1.8% of budgetCALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANT COUNCIL — $190,000 over 4y, 5.8% of budgetDisability Rights Education and Defense Fund Inc — $170,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetSacramento Region Community Foundation — $150,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCoalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives — $140,000 over 4y, 21% of budgetNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC — $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWild Farm Alliance — $100,000 over 3y, 21% of budgetNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION — $80,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSAMARITAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER — $78,000 over 7y, 9.1% of budgetCENTER FOR ALASKAN COASTAL STUDIES — $75,000 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetCommunity Living Campaign — $60,000 over 4y, 2.4% of budgetGWICHIN STEERING COMMITTEE — $50,000 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetALAMEDA MEALS ON WHEELS INC — $40,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetROCK CREEK ALLIANCE INC — $30,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetEAST BAY INNOVATIONS INC — $30,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS — $30,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetSERVICES FOR BRAIN INJURY — $30,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetCURRY SENIOR CENTER — $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetCOMMUNITY PARTNERS — $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMERCY RETIREMENT AND CARE CENTER — $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAXIS Dance Company — $15,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

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

  • Who funds ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds Earthworks ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA ↗
  • Who funds COOK INLETKEEPER ↗
  • Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS ↗
  • Who funds SITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds RESOURCE MEDIA ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN MINING ACTION PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY ALLIANCE WITH FAMILY FARMERS ↗
  • Who funds The Sierra Fund ↗
  • Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ↗
  • Who funds RENEWABLE ENERGY ALASKA PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds Pesticide Action Network North America ↗
  • Who funds IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE INC ↗
  • Who funds LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR SENIORS ↗
  • Who funds ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds ADVOCATES FOR THE WEST INC ↗
  • Who funds ALASKA MARINE COMMUNITY COALITION ↗
  • Who funds NATIVE MOVEMENT ↗
  • Who funds THE ALASKA CENTER EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANT COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Inc ↗
  • Who funds Sacramento Region Community Foundation ↗

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

PatagoniaorgAlaska Conservation F…Wilburforce FoundationRasmuson FoundationThe Alaska Community …The New-Land Foundati…New Venture Fund444s FoundationHarder FoundationGeorge H & Jane a Mif…The Wilderness SocietyThe Bullitt Foundation
PatagoniaorgCA36.5× affinity17 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · Alaska Conservation Foundation · Wilburforce Foundation · Rasmuson Foundation · The Alaska Community Foundation · The New-Land Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund · 444s Foundation · Harder Foundation · George H & Jane a Mifflin Memorial Fund · The Wilderness Society · The Bullitt Foundation

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization True North Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%your share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    12report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25

    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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to True North Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to True North Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 68 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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 camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home
    State money flows
    the interactive map of money crossing state lines