Burning Foundation

Burning Foundation is a small, hands-on family foundation run by the Weise family of Seattle — David N. Weise (President), Daniel W. Weise (Vice President), and Alisa Kf Weise (Secretary) — with zero officer compensation reported across every filing year, a strong signal this is a personally-directed giving vehicle rather than a staffed institution. Founded in August 1998 by David Weise, a former Microsoft engineer credited with helping build Windows 3.0, the foundation has kept an unusually narrow, unchanged mandate for nearly three decades: protect rivers, forests, native fish, and land in Washington and Oregon, and reduce teen pregnancy through evidence-based programs in the same two states. First-time applicants should understand this is not a foundation that entertains mission creep — proposals outside WA/OR or outside these two program areas are not competitive regardless of quality. The grantee list is dominated by small, locally rooted conservation groups (Futurewise, Conservation Northwest, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Waterwatch of Oregon, Re Sources, Oregon Natural Desert Association) rather than large national environmental brands — the foundation's own guidance states it explicitly prefers local groups working their immediate area and statewide groups over national organizations with Pacific Northwest projects. The relationship progression is a two-stage gate: a Letter of Interest (LOI) is required every cycle from every applicant, including past grantees, followed by an invitation-only full proposal for those advanced (notified at least two weeks before the proposal deadline). There is no evidence of site visits or multi-year pledges in available data; instead, the grantee list shows the same organizations reappearing with grant_count 3-6 across years — meaning the real path to sustained funding is proving out a first small grant and then re-earning renewal through fresh LOIs each cycle, not securing a locked-in multi-year commitment. Given the foundation's small staff footprint (three family officers, no paid program staff visible in filings), applications should be self-contained, evidence-driven, and require minimal foundation follow-up to evaluate.

Total giving was $1,048,000 in FY2024 (grants_paid), up from $855,000 in FY2023 and $867,000 in FY2022, though still below the FY2021 peak of $1,096,108. Total assets have held in a narrow $11.3M-$13.3M band for over a decade (from $8.5M in FY2012 to $11,292,564 in FY2024, with the most recent IRS asset snapshot showing $13,252,858) — this is a foundation compounding modestly on investment income (net investment income of $833,471 funded most of FY2024's $896,772 in total revenue) rather than raising new contributions; contributions_received was $0 in FY2020-2023 filings shown. The database's typical_grant_size figures (drawn from 52 recent awards) show a median grant of $14,000, average of $14,346, and a range of $5,000-$25,000. Looking at the top-50 grantee list (317 total tracked grants, $5,352,000 cumulative, $16,883 average), the largest relationships cluster right at the $25,000 ceiling per grant: Futurewise received $140,000 across 6 grants (~$23,333/grant), Conservation Northwest $125,000 across 5 grants ($25,000/grant), and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance $120,000 across 5 grants ($24,000/grant) — indicating that repeat, multi-year grantees earn close to the maximum award size while first-time grantees more likely land near the $14,000 median or the $5,000-$15,000 teen-pregnancy-prevention band. Geographically, grants split 159 to Washington and 138 to Oregon by count, with only 20 grants (6%) going to DC, ID, NM, and NY-based organizations — almost certainly national intermediaries or umbrella groups rather than a real geographic departure. By program mix, the top-50 list is overwhelmingly environmental/conservation (habitat, rivers, forests, land trusts, wildlands defense — roughly 40+ of the top 50 organizations), with a smaller but consistent teen pregnancy prevention cohort (Room One, Planned Parenthood affiliates in Greater Washington/North Idaho and Columbia Willamette, Neighborcare Health, Swedish Medical Center Foundation) making up an estimated 15-20% of total dollars.

These five peers are asset-tier matches (all $13.2M-$13.3M, versus Burning's $11.3M-$13.3M) pulled from the same IRS NTEE "Philanthropy & Grantmaking" category, but none have a public website on file, so their actual program focus, giving levels, and application posture could not be independently verified — this is common among small family foundations that operate without dedicated communications infrastructure. Burning Foundation stands out within this peer set for its unusual transparency: it publishes explicit areas-of-interest criteria, a defined two-cycle LOI process, and (per third-party grant databases) a track record of 300+ tracked grants going back over a decade. Grant seekers should treat Burning Foundation as more accessible and better-documented than most of its size-matched peers, several of which likely give only through invited or relationship-based channels given their lack of public grant infrastructure.

Public news coverage of Burning Foundation specifically is thin, typical for a three-person family foundation with no communications staff — the most concrete recent signal is a July 1, 2026 funding-opportunity post from King County School Health flagging the foundation's fall 2026 teen pregnancy prevention cycle, with LOIs due September 26, 2026 and awards in the $5,000-$15,000 range. No leadership changes, new program announcements, or large one-off grants were identified in available web sources; the same three Weise family officers (David N. Weise as President, Daniel W. Weise as Vice President, Alisa Kf Weise as Secretary) appear consistently across every filing year in the data, with zero reported officer compensation throughout, indicating continuity of control rather than any recent transition. The most notable recent financial activity is the FY2024 giving increase to $1,048,000 (grants_paid), the highest total_giving since FY2021's $1,096,108, following two comparatively flat years at $855,000 (FY2023) and $867,000 (FY2022) — total_giving includes non-grant charitable disbursements alongside grants_paid. Absent other public activity, applicants should treat this as a stable, quietly-operating funder whose behavior is best predicted by its decade-plus grant history rather than by news cycles.

Time the LOI to one of exactly two windows: spring (opens March 1, due the last Friday of March, with full proposals due the first Wednesday of May) or fall (opens September 1, due the last Friday of September — the fall 2026 window closes September 26, 2026 per the most recent funding-opportunity notice, with full proposals due the first Wednesday of November). There is no rolling review and no exceptions noted for late submissions. Every applicant, including prior grantees, must submit a new LOI each cycle — do not assume a past award creates an automatic renewal track; the grantee data shows repeat funding is real (many organizations show 3-6 grants over multiple years) but each one required a fresh, competitive LOI. If either your LOI or full proposal is declined, the foundation enforces a mandatory one-year wait before reapplying, so do not resubmit the immediately following cycle — use that year to strengthen the specific gaps that likely caused rejection. For environmental proposals, lead with ecosystem-level framing ("habitat that is part of a larger functioning ecosystem") rather than single-species or single-site framing, and explicitly position your organization as local or statewide rather than national — the foundation states this preference directly, and the grantee list (dominated by groups like Futurewise, Conservation Northwest, Waterwatch of Oregon, and Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center) confirms it in practice. For teen pregnancy prevention proposals, come to the LOI stage with a dedicated project budget, work plan, and measurable success criteria already drafted — the foundation's guidelines flag this as a requirement before submission, not a follow-up ask, and cite evidence-based methodology as a threshold expectation. A common mistake to avoid: applying from outside Washington or Oregon, or applying with a program that falls outside the two core areas — the foundation's mandate has not broadened in nearly 30 years of filings, and there is no sign it is expanding beyond WA/OR. For relationship-building, the sole listed contact is grant-management@burningfoundation.org (foundation phone (206) 920-6252 is on file but a direct programmatic email is preferred for inquiries) — given the small, family-run structure, keep outreach concise and proposal-focused rather than expecting extensive back-and-forth before the LOI stage.