Skip to content

· Private foundation

Alexander Host Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$228k
Granted FY2025still arriving
36
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$970kScience & Tech$26kPhilanthropy$26kInternational$20kArts & Culture$17kHuman Services$11kFood & Nutrition$5kAnimals$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 36 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k34 grants · $68k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $150k
$1,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB$150,000
BUZZARDS BAY COALITION$10,000
CTLCV$5,000
SIPPICAN LANDS TRUST$5,000
GREENWICH LAND TRUST$5,000
MUSC FOUNDATION$5,000
UPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST$5,000
SAVE THE SOUND$5,000
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL$3,000
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS$3,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE$3,000
MARION INSTITUTE INC FROGFOOT FARM$2,500
HARVARD UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT$2,500
GREAT MOUNTAIN FOREST CORP$2,500
AUDUBON OF NEW HAMPSHIRE$1,000
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 (FY17–21, $11k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CHARITY WATER: $5k → 17%CHARITY WATER: $3k → 17%CHARITY WATER: $1k → 17%CHARITY WATER: $1k → 17%CHARITY WATER: $500 → 17%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

NH
NY
MA
PA
CT
VA
DC
FL
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 47 repeat orgs$1k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +61% since the first grant, against -27% for those funded once.

47 repeat relationships: 35 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

47
3

Total granted

$1.1M
$1k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+61%
-27%

Still filing today

68%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentInternationalArts & CulturePhilanthropyHuman ServicesScience & TechOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • UV
    UPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $102k · revenue +28%
  • BUZZARDS BAY COALITION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $73k · revenue +83%
  • SL
    SIPPICAN LANDS TRUST INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $38k · revenue +87%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $1k
  • NT
    NH TIMBERLAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2017 · $100
  • SI
    SOUNDKEEPER INC
    one grant, 2017 · $100 · revenue -27%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its 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
Wildlands Trust Inc

The wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…

Environment
2
Land Conservancy of Ridgefield Inc

The Land Conservancy of Ridgefield, Inc. ("the Land Conservancy"), founded in 1967, preserves and protects, for the general benefit of the public, Ridgefield, Connecticut's natural resources including land and water resources, the plant…

Environment
3
Washington Forest Law Center

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.

—
4
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
5
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
6
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
7
Nantucket Conservation Foundation Inc

The nantucket conservation foundation owns, protects, and stewards over 9,000 acres of land and coastal shoreline, conserves nantucket's rare and significant natural resources, and engages in impactful ecological research to inform…

Environment
8
Whatcom Land Trust

The mission of the Whatcom Land Trust is to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural and open space lands in Whatcom County for future generations by securing interests in land and promoting land stewardship.

Environment
9
Franklin Land Trust Inc

The franklin land trust works to conserve farms, forests, wildlands, and other natural resources significant to the quality of the environment, economy, and rural character of western massachusetts.

Environment
10
The Forest Park Conservancy

To protect and restore the ecological health of forest park and marquam nature park, maintain and enhance their extensive trails networks, promote equitable access, and inspire diverse community appreciation and stewardship of these iconic…

Environment
11
The Adirondack Council Inc

The adirondack council ensures the ecological integrity (clean water and air, wildlife habitat, etc.), wild character (solitude, scenic beauty, etc.), and vibrant communities of new york's six-million-acre adirondack park. the adirondack…

Environment
12
New York League of Conservation Voters

See schedule onylcv is a non-partisan policy making and political action organization that works to make environmental protection a top priority with elected officials, decision-makers and the voters by evaluating incumbent performance and…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Greenwich Tree Conservancy Inc; the most unlike its peers is Granite State Woodland Institute. 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

35 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 35 of the 52 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

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

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
34/35
Grantees still filing
32/35
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB: $435,000 · OtherAPPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUBCTLCV: $23,000 · Other+22 more: $123,905 · Other+22 moreUPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC: $102,000 · EnvironmentUPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INCBUZZARDS BAY COALITION: $73,000 · EnvironmentBUZZARDS BAY COALITIONTHE GREENWICH LAND TRUST INC: $40,000 · EnvironmentTHE GREENWICH LAND TRUST INCSIPPICAN LANDS TRUST INC: $38,000 · EnvironmentSIPPICAN LANDS TRUST INCSAVE THE SOUND: $37,000 · EnvironmentSAVE THE SOUNDNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $17,000 · Environment+13 more: $75,400 · Environment+13 moreGreat Mountain Forest Corporation: $37,000 · PhilanthropyNew Hampshire Charitable Foundation: $26,000 · PhilanthropyInternational Rescue Committee INC: $20,000 · InternationalTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $18,000 · International+1 more: $350 · InternationalCHARITY GLOBAL INC: $10,500 · Human ServicesWOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION: $8,000 · Science & TechFOOD & WATER WATCH: $5,000 · Food & NutritionConnecticut Farmland Trust Inc: $2,500 · Food & Nutrition
Other$581,905Environment$382,400Philanthropy$63,000International$38,350Human Services$10,500Science & Tech$8,000Food & Nutrition$7,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC: $102,000 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetBUZZARDS BAY COALITION: $73,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetTHE GREENWICH LAND TRUST INC: $40,000 over 9y, 0.8% of budgetSIPPICAN LANDS TRUST INC: $38,000 over 9y, 2.8% of budgetGreat Mountain Forest Corporation: $37,000 over 9y, 1.3% of budgetSAVE THE SOUND: $37,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetNew Hampshire Charitable Foundation: $26,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $20,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $18,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $17,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetCHARITY GLOBAL INC: $10,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $10,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetSOUNDWATERS INC: $9,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetTHE GREENWICH TREE CONSERVANCY INC: $9,000 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetWOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION: $8,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $8,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetLAND TRUST ALLIANCE INC: $5,500 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE EARTH: $5,500 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetGREEN FINGERS GARDEN CLUB INC: $5,500 over 9y, 1.5% of budgetGREENWICH POINT CONSERVANCY INC: $5,500 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetFOOD & WATER WATCH: $5,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetLoon Preservation Committee: $5,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetGREENWICH GREEN & CLEAN INC: $4,300 over 9y, 1.3% of budgetBRUCE MUSEUM INC: $4,180 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetGREENWICH BOTANICAL CENTER INC: $4,000 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetTHE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER: $3,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetTABOR ACADEMY: $3,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MARITIME AQUARIUM AT NORWALK INC: $3,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHERN LIBERTIES NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION: $3,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetWestchester Land Trust Inc: $2,500 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetConnecticut Farmland Trust Inc: $2,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetEMERALD NECKLACE CONSERVANCY INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGRANITE STATE WOODLAND INSTITUTE: $1,600 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetPERFECT EARTH PROJECT INC: $350 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSOUNDKEEPER INC: $100 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • Who funds UPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds BUZZARDS BAY COALITION ↗
  • Who funds THE GREENWICH LAND TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds SIPPICAN LANDS TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds Great Mountain Forest Corporation ↗
  • Who funds SAVE THE SOUND ↗
  • Who funds New Hampshire Charitable Foundation ↗
  • Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
  • Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
  • Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds CHARITY GLOBAL INC ↗
  • Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUNDWATERS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE GREENWICH TREE CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION ↗
  • Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
  • Who funds LAND TRUST ALLIANCE INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE EARTH ↗
  • Who funds GREEN FINGERS GARDEN CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds GREENWICH POINT CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds FOOD & WATER WATCH ↗
  • Who funds Loon Preservation Committee ↗
  • Who funds GREENWICH GREEN & CLEAN INC ↗
  • Who funds BRUCE MUSEUM INC ↗
  • Who funds GREENWICH BOTANICAL CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER ↗
  • Who funds TABOR ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds THE MARITIME AQUARIUM AT NORWALK INC ↗

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.

Malkin Fund IncNY22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Malkin Fund Inc · The Old Stones Foundation Inc · Cornelia Cogswell Rossi Foundation Inc · Dr Joseph J Lawrence Trust Diana Serrell Trustee · Bucknall Family Foundation · Royce Family Fund Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Alexander Host Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Alexander Host Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 100%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: 63% of income from government
  • Buzzards Bay Coalition: 37% of income from government
  • Save the Sound: 37% of income from government
  • Connecticut Farmland Trust Inc: 7% of income from government
  • The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk Inc: 5% of income from government
  • Soundwaters Inc: 4% of income from government
  • Bruce Museum Inc: 0% of income from government
  • Emerald Necklace Conservancy Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
10get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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.

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 52 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Alexander Host’s filings →

More from the funding graph