Skip to content
American Forests at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

American Forests

Protection and expansion of threatened urban and wildland forest ecosystems.

$7.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
56
Grants FY2025still arriving
28
States reached
$1.3M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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$27MRecreation & Sports$1.0MFood & Nutrition$930kEmployment$842kPublic Safety & Disaster$702kPublic Benefit$387kInternational$352kCommunity Improvement$247kOther$0
02FY2025 · 56 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 56 grants below total $4,336,020, the rows itemized in this filing. The $7,305,070 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,969,050 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.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k31 grants · $901k
  • $50k–250k18 grants · $1.7M
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.7M
$36,192
Median grant
28
States reached
$17M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Pittsburgh Conservation Corps - DBA Landforce: $85k → 11%Indian Land Tenure Foundation: $30k → 14%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

ME
VT
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
MS
AL
GA
TX
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 11% of American Forests’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

American Forestslessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 5.6% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$26M · 95 repeat orgs$5.6M to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

95
103

Total granted

$26M
$5.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+30%
+32%

Still filing today

66%
41%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $189k 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
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementRecreation & SportsEducationAnimalsInternationalOther
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

  • TG
    THE GREENING OF DETROIT
    8× · 2018–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +128%
  • SN
    SIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE
    4× · 2021–2025 · $662k · revenue +93%
  • LC
    La Cruz Habitat Protection Project Inc
    4× · 2020–2024 · $598k · revenue +40% · 60% of their budget

Funded once

  • GR
    GLIDE REVITALIZATION
    one grant, 2022 · $387k · revenue -46%
  • UF
    URBAN FOREST CARBON REGISTRYgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $288k · revenue +251% · 60% of their budget
  • GF
    GREEN FORESTS WORK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $267k · revenue +150%
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
American Forests

Protection and expansion of threatened urban and wildland forest ecosystems. See Part III

Environment
2
Green Cities Accord

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…

Environment
3
North East Trees Inc

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,…

Environment
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
Center for Sustainable Economy

Promoting economic sustainability

Environment
6
Trees for the Future Inc

Our mission is to improve the livelihoods of impoverished farmers by revitalizing degraded lands.

Environment
7
Global Forest Generation

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,…

Environment
8
Tuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance

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.

—
9
The Greenwich Tree Conservancy Inc

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…

Environment
10
Reforest the Tropics Incorporated

Development of programs to offset personal and corporate carbon emissions through reforestation in the tropics.

Environment
11
Trees for the Triangle

We plant native trees in the Research Triangle region of North Carolina.

Environment
12
Mason County Climate Justice

Mason county climate justice envisions and co-creates local climate solutions that regenerate healthy ecosystems, benefit everyone in our rural community, and align with climate justice movements around the world.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Groundwork Usa Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

110 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. 110 of the 203 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.

8
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
30
Early backer (in before they grew)
108/110
Grantees still filing
75/110
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Red Mtn Resource LLC: $4,150,186 · OtherRed Mtn Resource LLCAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA): $3,674,393 · OtherAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA)MICHIGAN DEP OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES: $1,114,966 · OtherOregon Department of Forestry: $993,216 · OtherWest Forest Inc: $875,190 · Other+118 more: $10,508,817 · Other+118 moreTHE GREENING OF DETROIT: $2,368,257 · EnvironmentTHE GREENING OF DETROITSIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE: $662,086 · EnvironmentSIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCELa Cruz Habitat Protection Project Inc: $597,500 · EnvironmentLa Cruz Habitat Protection Proj…THE LONGLEAF ALLIANCE INC: $408,344 · Environment+54 more: $4,867,780 · Environment+54 morePARKS FOUNDATION OF MIAMI-DADEINC: $161,000 · Recreation & SportsKNOX INC: $142,500 · Recreation & SportsCITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $107,100 · Recreation & SportsEMERALD NECKLACE CONSERVANCY INC: $60,000 · Recreation & SportsLOS ANGELES RIVER STATE PARK PARTNERS: $25,000 · Recreation & SportsNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Recreation & SportsFRIENDS OF THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR: $445,389 · Arts & Culture+1 more: $9,650 · Arts & CultureGLIDE REVITALIZATION: $386,807 · Public BenefitWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $199,954 · InternationalUNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC: $107,054 · International1890 UNIVERSITIES FOUNDATION: $20,000 · InternationalGROUNDWORK RVA INC: $85,000 · Community ImprovementDetroit Future City: $60,000 · Community ImprovementBOSTON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $50,000 · Community ImprovementTREESLOUISVILLE INC: $33,000 · Community ImprovementROANOKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC: $25,000 · Community ImprovementGROUNDWORK USA INC: $20,000 · Community ImprovementNORTHCOTT NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE INC: $20,000 · Community Improvement
Other$21,316,768Environment$8,903,967Recreation & Sports$520,600Arts & Culture$455,039Public Benefit$386,807International$327,008Community Improvement$293,000

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE GREENING OF DETROIT: $2,368,257 over 8y, 20% of budgetSIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE: $662,086 over 4y, 15% of budgetLa Cruz Habitat Protection Project Inc: $597,500 over 4y, 60% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR: $445,389 over 6y, 43% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $426,523 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTHE LONGLEAF ALLIANCE INC: $408,344 over 6y, 4.9% of budgetGLIDE REVITALIZATION: $386,807 over 1y, 21% of budgetTEXAS TREES FOUNDATION: $295,939 over 4y, 6.8% of budgetURBAN FOREST CARBON REGISTRY: $288,000 over 1y, 60% of budgetArizona Sustainability Alliance: $279,500 over 6y, 15% of budgetGREEN FORESTS WORK INC: $267,240 over 1y, 14% of budgetSPEAK FOR THE TREES INC: $265,334 over 5y, 19% of budgetBIG ISLAND RC&D: $252,468 over 5y, 15% of budgetTrees For Houston: $210,269 over 5y, 3.0% of budgetBEXAR BRANCHES ALLIANCE CORP: $205,000 over 4y, 27% of budgetWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $199,954 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNATURAL AREAS CONSERVANCY INC: $196,000 over 3y, 3.8% of budgetALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY INC: $186,455 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetPARKS FOUNDATION OF MIAMI-DADEINC: $161,000 over 4y, 30% of budgetTHE MORTON ARBORETUM: $153,167 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetWHITEBARK PINE ECOSYSTEM FOUNDATION: $149,141 over 5y, 52% of budgetKEEP INDIANAPOLIS BEAUTIFUL INC: $146,926 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetAMERICAN YOUTHWORKS: $144,589 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetGROUNDWORK RHODE ISLAND: $143,000 over 2y, 18% of budgetThe Works Inc: $143,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetKNOX INC: $142,500 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetGarden Time Inc: $140,000 over 4y, 22% of budgetTACOMA TREE FOUNDATION: $134,827 over 3y, 8.3% of budgetVERMONT ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC: $134,375 over 2y, 7.6% of budgetTree Trust: $125,000 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetTUCSON CLEAN & BEAUTIFUL INC: $125,000 over 3y, 5.4% of budgetTREES ATLANTA INC: $120,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FOREST: $116,750 over 3y, 4.3% of budgetTHE MARION INSTITUTE INC: $115,000 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM INC: $114,182 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTREE UTAH: $112,600 over 2y, 6.3% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $112,400 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetROOTED IN CHEYENNE: $110,000 over 3y, 41% of budgetCITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $107,100 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetUNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC: $107,054 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTREES FOREVER INC: $106,000 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetGREAT BASIN INSTITUTE: $99,704 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetNorthern Rockies Conservation Cooperative: $96,497 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetRIO GRANDE RETURN: $90,000 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetBALTIMORE TREE TRUST INC: $87,500 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetPITTSBURGH CONSERVATION CORPS: $85,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetGROUNDWORK RVA INC: $85,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetHAWAI'I FOREST INSTITUTE: $85,000 over 2y, 31% 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 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 ↗

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.

National Arbor Day Fo…National Fish and Wil…The Nature ConservancyUrban Forestry Organi…National Forest Found…The Corps NetworkAmerican Forest Found…PatagoniaorgDoris Duke Charitable…United States Endowme…National Park Foundat…James M Cox Foundatio…
National Arbor Day FoundationNE66.8× affinity32 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 13%
  • 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
28report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
3rely 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 203 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on American Forests’ 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