· Private foundation
Whole Systems 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $4,500 |
| POST CARBON INSTITUTE | $2,000 |
| EARTH JUSTICE | $2,000 |
| ANIMAS VALLEY INSTITUTE | $2,000 |
| CULTURAL SURVIVAL | $1,500 |
| OUR CLIMATE | $1,500 |
| OFF GRID RETREATS | $1,500 |
| OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTER | $1,000 |
| SOLAR COOKERS INTERNATIONAL | $1,000 |
| TREES WATER PEOPLE | $1,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWID | $1,000 |
| PLANT INITIATIVE | $1,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
| LOCAL FUTURES SOCIETY | $1,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 97% of your 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 +82% since the first grant, against +28% for the ones you funded once.
23 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 2 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, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
- ELENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE8× · 2017–2024 · $15k · revenue +277%
- TWTREES WATER AND PEOPLE8× · 2017–2024 · $12k · revenue +149%
- SCSolar Cookers International8× · 2017–2024 · $8k · revenue +82%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $4k
- SFSAN FRANCISCO ZEN CENTERone grant, 2023 · $4k
- PCPULITZER CENTER ON CRISIS REPORTINGgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $4k · revenue +28%
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.
E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.
Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.
Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
CRI is an international climate and human rights monitoring and advocacy organization dedicated to preventing climate change and human rights abuses.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.
Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated and the most unlike its peers is Solar Cookers International. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 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. 18 of the 36 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
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 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds TREES WATER AND PEOPLE ↗
- Who funds Solar Cookers International ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION EARTH ↗
- Who funds THE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ↗
- Who funds XERCES SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds OUR CLIMATE ↗
- Who funds PULITZER CENTER ON CRISIS REPORTING ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST EARTH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds CULTURAL SURVIVAL INC ↗
- Who funds Post Growth Institute ↗
- Who funds OFF-GRID RETREATS ↗
- Who funds ANIMAS VALLEY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild ↗
- Who funds ECOVIVA NFP ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS CLIMATE EDUCATION CORP ↗
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: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Rsf Social Finance Inc · The Oregon Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Whole Systems 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.
- Xerces Society Inc — 22% of income from government
- Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild — 2% 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.