Skip to content
Whole Systems Foundation at a glance

· 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.

$29k
Granted FY2024still arriving
19
Grants FY2024still arriving
9
States reached
$5k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$210kInternational$9kAnimals$6kPublic Benefit$4kReligion$4kCommunity Improvement$3kCivil Rights$3kHuman Services$2k
02FY2024 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$454k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
SOLAR COOKERS INTERNATIONAL$1,000
TREES WATER PEOPLE$1,000
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWID$1,000
LOCAL FUTURES SOCIETY$1,000
OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTER$1,000
PLANT INITIATIVE$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%CULTURAL SURVIVAL: $2k → 8%POST CARBON INSTITUTE: $2k → 9%GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK: $4k → 10%SAN FRANCISCO ZEN CENTER: $4k → 10%SOIL HAAITI: $2k → 12%FOUNDATION EARTH: $2k → 14%OUR CLIMATE: $3k → 12%KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILD: $5k → 13%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWID: $3k → 15%ALAN KAPULER PhD: $8k → 18%TREES WATER PEOPLE: $3k → 11%LOCAL FUTURES SOCIETY: $2k → 12%OUR CLIMATE: $2k → 8%CULTURAL SURVIVAL: $2k → 8%POST CARBON INSTITUTE: $2k → 9%GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK: $3k → 10%OFF GRID RETREATS: $2k → 10%FOUNDATION EARTH: $2k → 14%OUR CLIMATE: $2k → 12%KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILD: $5k → 13%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWID: $3k → 15%ALAN KAPULER PhD: $7k → 18%TREES WATER PEOPLE: $2k → 11%LOCAL FUTURES SOCIETY: $2k → 12%POST CARBON INSTITUTE: $2k → 9%GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK: $2k → 10%FOUNDATION EARTH: $2k → 14%NORTHWEST EARTH INSTITUE: $2k → 12%KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILD: $5k → 13%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWID: $3k → 15%ALAN KAPULER PhD: $7k → 18%TREES WATER PEOPLE: $2k → 11%POST CARBON INSTITUTE: $2k → 9%GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK: $2k → 10%KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILD: $5k → 13%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWID: $2k → 15%ALAN KAPULER PhD: $6k → 18%KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILD: $5k → 13%MARIO DIBENEDETT: $5k → 18%KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILD: $5k → 13%ALAN KAPULER PhD: $5k → 18%DAN GROSSMAN MEDIA: $4k → 14%KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILD: $4k → 13%ALAN KAPULER PhD: $5k → 18%PULITZER CENTER ON CRISIS REPORTING: $4k → 14%KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILD: $4k → 13%POST GROWTH INSTITUTE: $3k → 13%EARTH JUSTICE: $2k → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

VT
MN
NY
MA
OR
CA
CO
MD
DC
GA
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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$210k · 23 repeat orgs$31k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +82% since the first grant, against +28% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
11

Total granted

$210k
$24k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+82%
+28%

Still filing today

52%
36%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
EnvironmentPublic BenefitAnimalsHuman ServicesCivil RightsEducationOther
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

  • EL
    ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $15k · revenue +277%
  • TW
    TREES WATER AND PEOPLE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $12k · revenue +149%
  • SC
    Solar Cookers International
    8× · 2017–2024 · $8k · revenue +82%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $4k
  • PC
    PULITZER CENTER ON CRISIS REPORTINGgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $4k · revenue +28%
  • SF
    SAN FRANCISCO ZEN CENTER
    one grant, 2023 · $4k
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
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
2
Global Forest Generation

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,…

Environment
3
Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech
4
Nature for Justice

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.

Environment
5
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
6
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
7
Climate Rights International

CRI is an international climate and human rights monitoring and advocacy organization dedicated to preventing climate change and human rights abuses.

Environment
8
International Council On Environmental Economics and Development Union
Human Services
9
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment
10
Cascade Climate Inc

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

Environment
11
Nature and Culture International

Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.

Environment
12
Environment Next Inc

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…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated; 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.
04the grantee network

18 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. 18 of the 36 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

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

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
12/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $38,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $37,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE: $15,400 · OtherENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDEPOST CARBON INSTITUTE: $12,000 · OtherPOST CARBON INSTITUTELOCAL FUTURES SOCIETY: $9,000 · OtherLOCAL FUTURES SOCIETYIndividual grant recipient: $6,500 · Other+15 more: $43,553 · Other+15 moreGLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK INC: $13,500 · EnvironmentGLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK IN…TREES WATER AND PEOPLE: $12,000 · EnvironmentTREES WATER AND PEOPLESolar Cookers International: $8,000 · EnvironmentSolar Cookers InternationalFOUNDATION EARTH: $7,600 · EnvironmentFOUNDATION EARTHTHE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $7,500 · EnvironmentTHE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSER…OUR CLIMATE: $5,000 · EnvironmentOUR CLIMATE+3 more: $4,000 · Environment+3 morePULITZER CENTER ON CRISIS REPORTING: $4,000 · Public BenefitPost Growth Institute: $3,000 · Public BenefitXERCES SOCIETY INC: $6,000 · AnimalsCULTURAL SURVIVAL INC: $3,000 · Civil RightsOFF-GRID RETREATS: $2,500 · EducationANIMAS VALLEY INSTITUTE: $2,000 · Human Services
Other$162,453Environment$57,600Public Benefit$7,000Animals$6,000Civil Rights$3,000Education$2,500Human Services$2,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE: $15,400 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetGLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK INC: $13,500 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetTREES WATER AND PEOPLE: $12,000 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetSolar Cookers International: $8,000 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetFOUNDATION EARTH: $7,600 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetTHE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $7,500 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetXERCES SOCIETY INC: $6,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetOUR CLIMATE: $5,000 over 2y, 40% of budgetPULITZER CENTER ON CRISIS REPORTING: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHWEST EARTH INSTITUTE: $3,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCULTURAL SURVIVAL INC: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetOFF-GRID RETREATS: $2,500 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetANIMAS VALLEY INSTITUTE: $2,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild: $1,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetECOVIVA NFP: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCITIZENS CLIMATE EDUCATION CORP: $1,000 over 1y, 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.

  • 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 Post Growth Institute ↗
  • Who funds CULTURAL SURVIVAL INC ↗
  • 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 ↗

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.

Rockefeller Philanthr…Rsf Social Finance IncThe Oregon Community …Vanguard Charitable E…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors IncNY14.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Whole Systems Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Whole Systems Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 22%
  • Xerces Society Inc: 22% of income from government
  • Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
5get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
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 36 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Whole Systems’ 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