· Public charity
American Forests
Protection and expansion of threatened urban and wildland forest ecosystems.
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.
The 56 grants below total $4,336,020 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $7,305,070 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $2,969,050 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k5 grants · $38k
- $10k–50k31 grants · $901k
- $50k–250k18 grants · $1.7M
- $250k+2 grants · $1.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Red Mtn Resource LLC | $1,318,763 |
| Greening of Detroit | $334,783 |
| Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division | $240,670 |
| Sierra Nevada Alliance | $189,468 |
| Alta Archaeological Consulting LLC | $149,012 |
| US Forest Service | $121,875 |
| The University of Tennessee | $111,000 |
| Minnesota Department of Natural Resources | $106,093 |
| Michigan State University | $100,000 |
| PRT USA INC | $94,795 |
| Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative | $83,982 |
| Bexar Branches Alliance Corp | $70,000 |
| City of Camas | $65,000 |
| NC Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services | $63,489 |
| BBRAC FARMS LLC | $63,200 |
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 (FY22–23, $115k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those 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
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 11% of American Forests’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.
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 +34% since the first grant, against +25% for the ones you funded once.
95 repeat relationships — 52 still active in FY2025, 43 since wound down; 3 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, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $189k 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
- TGTHE GREENING OF DETROIT8× · 2018–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +128%
- SNSIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE4× · 2021–2025 · $662k · revenue +93%
- LCLa Cruz Habitat Protection Project Inc4× · 2020–2024 · $598k · revenue +40% · 60% of their budget
Funded once
- GRGLIDE REVITALIZATIONone grant, 2022 · $387k · revenue -46%
- UFURBAN FOREST CARBON REGISTRYgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $288k · revenue +57% · 60% of their budget
- GFGREEN FORESTS WORK INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $267k · revenue +150%
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.
Protection and expansion of threatened urban and wildland forest ecosystems. See Part III
Green Cities Accord is a nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering climate resilient communities through investments in tree canopy infrastructure to improve environmental health, climate resilience, and equity in communities. We focus…
In 2024, our work made a lasting impact on both people and the environment. Together with our community, we planted 2,739 new plants and trees, ensuring future shade, cleaner air, and greener neighborhoods. We also cared for 7,442 trees,…
Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Development of programs to offset personal and corporate carbon emissions through reforestation in the tropics.
Promoting economic sustainability
At Yosemite Rivers Alliance, we unite conservation and community to protect and restore the three rivers that ?ow through the Yosemite Regionthe Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced.
The greenwich tree conservancy is open to all interested citizens, governed by a board and advised by an advisory board. it was created to preserve and enhance the tree and forest resources of greenwich, ct to benefit the community, its…
Our mission is to improve the livelihoods of impoverished farmers by revitalizing degraded lands.
We plant native trees in the Research Triangle region of North Carolina.
To research, develop, and teach ecologically effective means to protect, manage, and restore forest lands.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Groundwork Usa Inc and the most unlike its peers is Donate a Tree to the World. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 30 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 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
109 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. 109 of the 203 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 THE GREENING OF DETROIT ↗
- Who funds SIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds La Cruz Habitat Protection Project Inc ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds THE LONGLEAF ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds GLIDE REVITALIZATION ↗
- Who funds TEXAS TREES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds URBAN FOREST CARBON REGISTRY ↗
- Who funds Arizona Sustainability Alliance ↗
- Who funds GREEN FORESTS WORK INC ↗
- Who funds SPEAK FOR THE TREES INC ↗
- Who funds BIG ISLAND RC&D ↗
- Who funds Trees For Houston ↗
- Who funds BEXAR BRANCHES ALLIANCE CORP ↗
- Who funds WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds NATURAL AREAS CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY INC ↗
- Who funds PARKS FOUNDATION OF MIAMI-DADEINC ↗
- Who funds THE MORTON ARBORETUM ↗
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 Arbor Day Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Urban Forestry Organization · National Forest Foundation · The Corps Network · American Forest Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Inc · United States Endowment for Forestry · National Park Foundation · James M Cox Foundation of Georgia Inc
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 American Forests 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.
- Baltimore Tree Trust Inc — 100% of income from government
- Intertribal Timber Council — 100% of income from government
- Glide Revitalization — 87% of income from government
- Vermont Association of Conservation Districts Inc — 35% of income from government
- Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Inc — 28% of income from government
- Intervale Center Inc — 13% of income from government
- Delaware Center for Horticulture Inc — 4% of income from government
- Knox Inc — 2% of income from government
- Speak for the Trees Inc — 2% of income from government
- The Marion Institute Inc — 1% of income from government
- Emerald Necklace Conservancy Inc — 0% 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.