Skip to content
Wright-Ingraham Institute at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Wright-Ingraham Institute

Promote, Direct, Encourage and Develop Opportunities Contributing to the Conservation, Preservation, and Use of Human and Natural Resources.

$40k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Environment$115kFood & Nutrition$10kInternational$5kCivil Rights$5k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $20,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $40,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $20,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$35k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GRAND STAIRCASE ESCALANTE PARTNERS INC$10,000
DRYLANDS AGROECOLOGY RESEARCH FOUNDATION$10,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–20, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WOMEN OF RENEWABLE INDUSTERIES AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY: $10k → 20%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

NY
CA
UT
CO
AZ
KS
DC
LA
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 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
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
2
Natural State Ltd

Through large-scale restoration and rewilding, natural state secures biodiversity, sequesters and stores carbon, and helps achieve the sustainable development goals. natural state is helping restore and rewild a minimum of 1,000,000 acres.

Environment
3
Rocky Mountain Wild

Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…

Environment
4
Colorado Open Lands

Colorado open lands' mission is to preserve the significant open lands and natural heritage of colorado through private and public partnerships, innovative land conservation, and strategic leadership.

Environment
5
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
6
Collaborative Earth Institute

We are scientists and engineers, humanists and designers. Coming together across disciplinary and cultural boundaries, we form focused teams to discover and co-create pathways to social and ecological regeneration.

Science & Tech
7
Applied Ecological Institute Inc

Aei is a non profit ideation collaborative studio creating globalscale, ecological based solutions for a climate positive future.

Environment
8
Terraset

Terraset uses philanthropic capital to purchase permanent, high-quality carbon removal. we pool donations from individuals, foundations, family offices, and donor advised funds, and make strategic purchases of high-quality carbon removal…

Environment
9
San Isabel Land Protection Trust

The principal mission of the land trust is to work with landowners to protect agricultural and forest lands, water resources, wildlife habitat and scenic open spaces, and to serve our community by facilitating parks and trail in custer,…

—
10
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
11
Native Plant Trust Inc

The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.

Environment
12
Natura Bolivia Foundation

The Natura Bolivia Foundation is dedicated to implementing, and evaluating the impact of conservation and development programs, with a focus on watershed conservation, protected areas, and incentive based conservation in Bolivia. We work…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Open Space Institute Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ktk-Belt Inc. 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

17 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.

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

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
14/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SOUTHERN PLAINS LAND TRUST INC: $15,000 · EnvironmentSOUTHERN PLAINS LAND TRUST INCKTK-BELT INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentKTK-BELT INCGRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE PARTNERS INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentGRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE PARTNERS INCNATIVE SEEDSSOUTHWESTERN ENDANGERED: $10,000 · EnvironmentNATIVE SEEDSSOUTHWESTERN ENDANGEREDThe Sustainability Laboratory Inc: $10,000 · EnvironmentThe Sustainability Laboratory IncDEEP SOUTH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL: $5,000 · EnvironmentDEEP SOUTH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK: $5,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORKBORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK: $5,000 · EnvironmentBORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORKMOUNTAIN STUDIES INSTITUE: $5,000 · EnvironmentMOUNTAIN STUDIES INSTITUEOPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC: $5,000 · EnvironmentOPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INCThe Land Institute: $10,000 · OtherDrylands Agroecology Research Foundation: $10,000 · Food & NutritionLOS ANGELES CLEANTECH INCUBATOR: $10,000 · Community ImprovementWOMEN OF RENEWABLE INDUSTRIES AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY: $10,000 · Human ServicesENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING FOR KIDS: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentColorado Freedom of Info Council: $5,000 · Civil RightsTHE NETHERLAND-AMERICA FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · International
Environment$80,000Other$10,000Food & Nutrition$10,000Community Improvement$10,000Human Services$10,000Youth Development$5,000Civil Rights$5,000International$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOUTHERN PLAINS LAND TRUST INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetKTK-BELT INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetThe Land Institute: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE PARTNERS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetDrylands Agroecology Research Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetNATIVE SEEDSSOUTHWESTERN ENDANGERED: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetLOS ANGELES CLEANTECH INCUBATOR: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWOMEN OF RENEWABLE INDUSTRIES AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetThe Sustainability Laboratory Inc: $10,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING FOR KIDS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetDEEP SOUTH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetColorado Freedom of Info Council: $5,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK: $5,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetMOUNTAIN STUDIES INSTITUE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetOPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE NETHERLAND-AMERICA FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

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.

PatagoniaorgImpactassetsincWalton Family Foundat…The Nature ConservancyNational Fish and Wil…The Denver FoundationColorado Gives Founda…Silicon Valley Commun…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…
PatagoniaorgCA17× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · Impactassetsinc · Walton Family Foundation Inc · The Nature Conservancy · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

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 Wright-Ingraham Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wright-Ingraham Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report 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, FY20–24
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Wright-Ingraham Institute?

    Find your warmest path to Wright-Ingraham Institute 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.

    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 17 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Wright-Ingraham Institute’s 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