· Private foundation
Wiancko Charitable Foundation Inc
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 FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $5k
- $10k–50k23 grants · $680k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $655k
- $250k+1 grant · $260k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD | $260,000 |
| ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE | $100,000 |
| OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL | $85,000 |
| MSI UNITED STATES | $75,000 |
| CLIMATE SOLUTIONS | $75,000 |
| ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER | $65,000 |
| ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION | $55,000 |
| AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| ECOTRUST | $50,000 |
| ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE | $50,000 |
| NRDC | $50,000 |
| CASCADIA WILDLANDS | $45,000 |
| SUSTAINABLE NORTHWEST | $40,000 |
| CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL | $40,000 |
| NORTHWEST ENERGY COALITION | $40,000 |
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 79% 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 +27% since the first grant, against +15% for the ones you funded once.
47 repeat relationships — 33 still active in FY2024, 14 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, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $57k 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
- OEOregon Environmental Council5× · 2020–2024 · $330k · revenue +1%
EARTHJUSTICE4× · 2020–2023 · $325k · revenue +16%
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC5× · 2020–2024 · $309k · revenue +28%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · $495k
- PPPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER WA AND IDone grant, 2020 · $158k
- OBOREGON BUSINESS COUNCILone grant, 2020 · $55k · revenue +15%
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.
Nedc's mission is to work toward a future in which the pacific northwest leads the nation in developing, implementing & enforcing strong laws and regulations that protect the environment & human health, and where our governments &…
To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.
Promoting economic sustainability
Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
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.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
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.…
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 national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
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 Treesong Nature Awareness and Retreat Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 35 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
55 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. 55 of the 70 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 Oregon Environmental Council ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE SOLUTIONS ↗
- Who funds COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Rocky Mountain Institute ↗
- Who funds ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds MSI US ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds ECOTRUST ↗
- Who funds POPULATION ACTION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds Columbia Riverkeeper ↗
- Who funds Sightline Institute ↗
- Who funds NW ENERGY COALITION ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON CONSERVATION ACTION EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE ↗
- Who funds ECOFLIGHT ↗
- Who funds THE GRAND CANYON TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds Verde Inc ↗
- Who funds Friends of the Columbia Gorge ↗
- Who funds Earthcorps ↗
- Who funds WESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds SUSTAINABLE NORTHWEST ↗
- Who funds CASCADIA WILDLANDS ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds IBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD ↗
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: The Bullitt Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Meyer Memorial Trust · The Oregon Community Foundation · The Lazar Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Resources Legacy Fund · The Nature Conservancy · The Collins Foundation · Seattle Foundation · Climate Solutions · Oregon Environmental Council
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 Wiancko Charitable Foundation Inc 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.
- Ecotrust — 14% of income from government
- Beyond Toxics — 13% of income from government
- Conservation Biology Institute — 9% of income from government
- Ibis Reproductive Health Inc — 9% of income from government
- Sustainable Northwest — 5% of income from government
- Verde Inc — 3% of income from government
- Oregon Business Council — 3% of income from government
- Bark — 2% of income from government
- Columbia Riverkeeper — 1% of income from government
- Western Rivers Conservancy — 0% of income from government
- Community Energy Project Inc — 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 Wiancko Charitable Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Wiancko Charitable Foundation Inc 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.