· Private foundation
Weeden Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k50 grants · $99k
- $10k–50k79 grants · $1.7M
- $50k–250k3 grants · $152k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| RESOLVE | $52,000 |
| NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION | $50,000 |
| CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY | $50,000 |
| PACIFIC FOREST TRUST | $42,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $40,000 |
| THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC | $32,000 |
| CENTER FOR LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION | $30,000 |
| THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP | $30,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $30,000 |
| AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY | $30,000 |
| WILDEARTH GUARDIANS | $28,000 |
| EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE (WILD HERITAGE) | $27,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES | $25,000 |
| DIAN FOSSEY GORILLA FUND INTERNATIONAL | $25,000 |
| PANTHERA | $25,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY23–24, $11k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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
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.
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 repeat relationships — 83 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 48 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $746k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- RIRESOLVE INC3× · 2022–2024 · $129k · revenue +6%
- TPThe Pacific Forest Trust Incorporated3× · 2022–2024 · $96k · revenue +296%
- SRSmith River Alliance Inc2× · 2022–2024 · $77k · revenue +338%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $50k
- IFINSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCESone grant, 2022 · $27k · revenue +4%
- CEConservation Environmental Law Centerone grant, 2022 · $25k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
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…
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…
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.
The mission of wildcoast is to conserve coastal and marine ecosystems and address climate change through natural solutions. our staff is dedicated to conserving threatened and endangered coastlines and wildlife in california and mexico.…
Connect conservationists and supporters, deploy resources to the field, provide conservationists with tools and support they need to succeed.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Preserving and enhancing the habitat of wildlife, such as sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, which habitat expenses are supported by agricultural activities.
Sustainable conservation, inc works with the conservation fund, a nonprofit corporation, to create partnerships with the private, nonprofit, and public sectors to protect the outdoor heritage of the united states.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
At Yosemite Rivers Alliance, we unite conservation and community to protect and restore the three rivers that ?ow through the Yosemite Regionthe Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced.
The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.
Fsc i&p promotes environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests. this mission aligns with the forest stewardship council (fsc), its network of offices, and other organizations.…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Research and Policy Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is Solar Sister Inc. 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.
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 32 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
147 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. 147 of the 231 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 RESOLVE INC ↗
- Who funds The Pacific Forest Trust Incorporated ↗
- Who funds American Bird Conservancy ↗
- Who funds Smith River Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC ↗
- Who funds YELLOWSTONE TO YUKON ↗
- Who funds ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds POPULATION MEDIA CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment Inc ↗
- Who funds THE STORY OF STUFF PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE CONSERVATION DBA CENTER FOR LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds WATER CLIMATE TRUST ↗
- Who funds THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds WILDEARTH GUARDIANS ↗
- Who funds WILD SALMON CENTER ↗
- Who funds GREEN CORPS INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds Wild Earth Society Incorporated ↗
- Who funds NORTHWOODS ALLIANCE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds Global Forest Generation ↗
- Who funds African Wildlife Conservation Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ↗
- Who funds PANTHERA CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds SANCTUARY FOREST INC ↗
- Who funds WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds CONGO EDUCATION PARTNERS INC ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · Resources Legacy Fund · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · The Marisla Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · The Overbrook Foundation · Firedoll Foundation · Wilburforce Foundation · Land Trust Alliance Inc
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 Weeden 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.
- The Salisbury Association Inc — 54% of income from government
- Wild Salmon Center — 49% of income from government
- Northwoods Stewardship Center — 40% of income from government
- Cascades Carnivore Project — 16% of income from government
- Beyond Toxics — 13% of income from government
- Manomet Inc — 12% of income from government
- Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation Inc — 2% of income from government
- Sea Turtle Conservancy — 1% of income from government
- Yale New Haven Hospital — 0% of income from government
- Western Rivers Conservancy — 0% of income from government
- Choate Rosemary Hall Foundation Incorporated — 0% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Weeden Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Weeden 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.