· Private foundation
Woodford Foundation
Its FY2025 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k41 grants · $92k
- $10k–50k13 grants · $220k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION | $60,000 |
| STATE POLICY NETWORK | $25,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE | $25,000 |
| CONSERVATIVE PARTNERSHIP INSTITUTE | $25,000 |
| JUDICIAL WATCH | $25,000 |
| CONVENTION OF STATES FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| STEAMBOAT INSTITUTE | $20,000 |
| AMERICAN COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI | $15,000 |
| THE FUND FOR AMERICAN STUDIES | $10,200 |
| OMEGA PSI PHI FRATERNITY UPLIFT FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE | $10,000 |
| PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE | $10,000 |
| ACTON INSTITUTE | $10,000 |
| THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE | $7,500 |
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 (FY18–23, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +43% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.
88 repeat relationships — 54 still active in FY2025, 34 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- UOUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION9× · 2017–2025 · $460k · revenue +79%
- SPSTATE POLICY NETWORK9× · 2017–2025 · $165k · revenue +90%
- IFINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE9× · 2017–2025 · $150k · revenue +57%
Funded once
- TBTHE BASTIAT SOCIETYone grant, 2017 · $20k
- SFState Freedom Caucus Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +52%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $5k
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 educate the public on constitutional issues and public policy matters. We are dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and the values embodied in the Declaration of…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
Disseminate information and education about pertinent economic, social and governmental topics, via print, web and other media to educate the public about the principles of LIbertarianism.
The r street institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy research organization ("think tank"). our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government. (continued on…
To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.
Iri advances freedom and democracy worldwide by developing political parties, civic institutions, open elections, democratic governance and the rule of law.
To advance economic and social liberties and a free enterprise society through strategic litigation, training, communication, activism and research. in addition, the center will train law students, lawyers and policy activists in the…
To provide thoughtful, conservative solutions to the challenges presented by education, workforce, labor and employment issues.
The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Heritage Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Bastiat Society. 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 34 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) — 1% 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.
89 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 89 of the 115 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 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds STATE POLICY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds FREEDOMWORKS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Conservative Partnership Institute ↗
- Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS FOR SELF-GOVERNANCE ↗
- Who funds THE STEAMBOAT INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty ↗
- Who funds INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI ↗
- Who funds Leadership Program of the Rockies ↗
- Who funds New Civil Liberties Alliance ↗
- Who funds PIKES PEAK STATE COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Institute for Humane Studies ↗
- Who funds THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE FUND FOR AMERICAN STUDIES ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Bill of Rights Institute ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDIES INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH ↗
- Who funds WOODSON CENTER ↗
- Who funds TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR TEACHING ECONOMICS ↗
- Who funds LUCY BURNS INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE ↗
- Who funds CATO INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COLORADO COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC EDUCATION ↗
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: Donors Trust Inc · Bradley Impact Fund Inc · Sarah Scaife Foundation Incorporated · Adolph Coors Foundation · The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc · Charles Koch Foundation · The Armstrong Foundation · Charles Koch Institute · Garvey Kansas Foundation · Triad Foundation Inc · John William Pope Foundation · Pierre F & Enid Goodrich 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 Woodford 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 Woodford Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Woodford 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.