· Private foundation
Westwind 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.
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 $10k78 grants · $261k
- $10k–50k55 grants · $1.1M
- $50k–250k27 grants · $2.3M
- $250k+1 grant · $2.2M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ADVOCATES FOR YOUTH | $2,209,629 |
| FOS FEMINISTA | $225,000 |
| DKT INTERNATIONAL | $200,000 |
| SELC | $150,000 |
| EARTHJUSTICE | $125,000 |
| CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS | $125,000 |
| TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA | $110,000 |
| ACTION FOR THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY | $100,000 |
| VIRGINIA ORGANIZING | $90,000 |
| APPALACHIAN VOICES | $85,000 |
| CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK | $85,000 |
| PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE | $80,000 |
| SOCIAL GOOD FUND | $75,000 |
| NATIONAL WOMEN'S HEALTH NETWORK | $75,000 |
| HOPEWELL FUND | $75,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $79k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 86% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +44% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
169 repeat relationships — 139 still active in FY2024, 30 since wound down; 15 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, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $218k 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
THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC8× · 2017–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +69%
Public Health Institute8× · 2017–2024 · $790k · revenue +130%- CCCHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK INC7× · 2017–2024 · $735k · revenue +232%
Funded once
NEO Philanthropy Incone grant, 2023 · $75k · revenue +1%- NVNEW VENTURE FUND - FOSSIL FUELone grant, 2017 · $50k
- YTYOUTH TECH HEATLTHone grant, 2018 · $39k
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.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
Eastern national promotes the public's understanding and support of america's national parks and other public trust partners by providing quality educational experiences, products and services.
Terraset uses philanthropic capital to purchase permanent, high-quality carbon removal. we pool donations from individuals, foundations, family offices, and donor advised funds, and make strategic purchases of high-quality carbon removal…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
To launch breakthrough climate mitigation efforts by identifying, supporting, and unleashing innovative leaders with transformative strategies.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues. we provide leadership, outreach and communication support, grants, and investments to empower leaders and their ideas…
The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Goodpower Education Fund Inc and the most unlike its peers is Prouts Neck Historical Society. 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 36 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
143 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. 143 of the 227 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 ADVOCATES FOR YOUTH ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds DKT INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds Public Health Institute ↗
- Who funds CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds APPALACHIAN VOICES ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds CERES INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION WESTERN HEMISPHERE REGION ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA ↗
- Who funds 350ORG ↗
- Who funds Catholics for Choice ↗
- Who funds IPAS ↗
- Who funds GREENPEACE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY INC ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds South Carolina Coastal Conservation League Inc ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA CONSERVATION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds Groundswell Fund ↗
- Who funds FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WETLANDS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GOODPOWER EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds National Women's Health Network ↗
- Who funds Alabama Rivers Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds RACHEL'S NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds Solar United Neighbors 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: Charlottesville Area Community Foundation · The J & E Berkley Foundation · The Oak Hill Fund · Caplin Foundation · The Genan Foundation · Manning Family Foundation · Perry Foundation Inc · Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust · Janet Stone Jones Foundation · The Charles Fund Inc · United States Energy Foundation · The Energy 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 Westwind 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- New England Forestry Foundation Inc — 88% of income from government
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution — 63% of income from government
- Community Health Programs Incorporated — 13% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Yale University — 12% of income from government
- Volunteers in Medicine-Berkshires Inc — 10% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Boston Symphony Orchestra Inc — 0% of income from government
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Ceres Inc — 0% of income from government
- Williams College — 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 Westwind Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Westwind 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.