· Public charity
Wild Salmon Center
The mission of WILD SALMON CENTER is to promote the conservation and sustainable use of wild salmon ecosystems across the pacific rim.
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.
The 11 grants below total $2,269,849 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $3,105,004 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $835,155 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $6k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $28k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $746k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.5M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS | $1,227,628 |
| SIUSLAW SWCD | $261,885 |
| ROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL | $202,999 |
| COOS BAY WATERSHED ASSOCIATION | $201,618 |
| NEW VENTURE FUND CO SALMONSTATE | $100,000 |
| MIDCOAST WATERSHEDS COUNCIL | $97,126 |
| NEHALEM BAY WATERSHED COUNCIL | $91,308 |
| QUILEUTE TRIBE | $52,554 |
| COAST SALMON FOUNDATION | $16,000 |
| QUINAULT INDIAN NATION | $12,349 |
| CURRRY WATERSHEDS | $6,382 |
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 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 99% 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
Grants abroad, by region — $818k on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: SKEENA CONSERVATION GRANT · DEAN CONSERVATION
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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 10% of Wild Salmon Center’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 82% of the giving stays in OR; read by stated purpose it is 71% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +139% since the first grant, against +39% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 3 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; $81k 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
- CWCOOS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION7× · 2018–2024 · $912k · revenue +139%
- RRROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL7× · 2018–2024 · $679k · revenue +219%
- CWCURRY WATERSHEDS NONPROFIT7× · 2018–2024 · $665k · revenue +388% · 79% of their budget
Funded once
- ARALASKA RANGE ALLIANCEone grant, 2023 · $100k
- NMNational Marine Fisheries Serviceone grant, 2018 · $45k
- TRTHEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INCgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $28k · revenue +54%
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 conserve functioning salmon/steelhead eco-system at watershed levels, integrate angling activities with basic scientific research, collect raw data, monitor environmental functions, salmon/steelhead population dynamics, public…
Coquille watershed association (coqwa) works collaboratively with communities and landowners to develop and implement voluntary watershed restoration, enhancement, and community engagement activities that promote healthy and resilient…
Wwt's mission is to protect and restore water in rivers and streams across washington state. washington water trust restores and protects water in rivers and streams and promotes sustainable freshwater management in washington, and, more…
The Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF) promotes the conservation of Idaho's wildlife heritage and legacy of sporting opportunities for the current and future generations.
The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is a local nonprofit organization that strives to enhance and restore habitat for fish and wildlife our community and for future generations. Our Board of Directors consists of seven members with…
Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.
To improve fisheries resources in the state of california.
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…
To conserve, protect, and restore north america's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.
To promote stewardship of the Crooked River Watershed and its resources and to ensure sustainable watershed health, functions, and uses for optimal conservation and benefit.
Work through advocacy and education to use federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act to protect and restore water quality and habit in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide.
Krrc's mission is to implement the klamath hydroelectric settlement agreement by removing four hydroelectric dams on the klamath river, restoring surrounding lands, and implementing required mitigation measures. (continued on schedule o)as…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Salmon River Restoration Council and the most unlike its peers is Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. 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 27 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 6% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
23 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. 23 of the 34 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 SILETZ TRIBAL ARTS AND HERITAGE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds COOS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds CURRY WATERSHEDS NONPROFIT ↗
- Who funds Stand for Salmon ↗
- Who funds SIUSLAW WATERSHED COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds UPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds MIDCOAST WATERSHEDS COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds APPLEGATE PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds LOWER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA TROUT INC ↗
- Who funds WaterWatch of Oregon ↗
- Who funds THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS FUND ↗
- Who funds SALMON RIVER RESTORATION COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON COAST SUSTAINABLE SALMON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OREGON HUNTERS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds WILD FISH CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST SPORTFISHING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds WILD RIVERS LAND TRUST ↗
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: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · The Ford Family Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Resources Legacy Fund · The Burning Foundation · Bonneville Environmental Foundation · The Roundhouse Foundation · Meyer Memorial Trust · The Pew Charitable Trusts · New Venture Fund · The Oregon Community 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 Wild Salmon Center 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.
- Siuslaw Watershed Council Inc — 100% of income from government
- Applegate Partnership Inc — 100% of income from government
- Rogue River Watershed Council — 94% of income from government
- Midcoast Watersheds Council — 76% of income from government
- WaterWatch of Oregon — 61% of income from government
- Upper Nehalem Watershed Council — 52% of income from government
- Curry Watersheds Nonprofit — 47% of income from government
- Coos Watershed Association — 44% 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.