Skip to content
Bee Informed Partnership Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Bee Informed Partnership Inc

The bee informed partnership is a collaboration of efforts across the country from some of the leading research labs and universities in agriculture and science to provide resources to increase colony survivorship by providing relevant, timely colony health data for beekeepers to make informed decisions.

$859k
Granted FY2022
6
Grants FY2022
6
States reached
$486k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Education$2.2MScience & Tech$913kAnimals$274kFood & Nutrition$84kHealth$32kOther$0
02FY2022 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $367k
  • $250k+1 grant · $486k
$84,099
Median grant
6
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SPAC$486,250
UC DAVIS$165,917
TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH$84,099
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNES$65,133
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY$52,349
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY$5,035
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%University of Minnesota: $88k → 11%University of California - San Diego: $32k → 11%Texas A&M AgriLife Research: $92k → 22%Michigan State University: $110k → 16%Auburn University: $25k → 15%Oregon State University: $128k → 18%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SPAC: $486k → 11%University of Minnesota: $58k → 11%Texas A&M AgriLife Research: $85k → 22%Michigan State University: $94k → 16%Oregon State University: $82k → 18%University of Maryland SPAC: $430k → 11%Texas A&M AgriLife Research: $73k → 22%Michigan State University: $89k → 16%Oregon State University: $60k → 18%University of Maryland: $229k → 11%Texas A&M AgriLife Research: $56k → 22%Michigan State University: $80k → 16%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $5k → 18%University of Maryland: $159k → 11%TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH: $84k → 22%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $52k → 16%University of Maryland: $65k → 11%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

MN
MI
OR
CA
MD
AL
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.4M · 7 repeat orgs$967k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2022, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
4

Total granted

$3.4M
$967k

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK
    5× · 2017–2022 · $1.0M
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS
    4× · 2017–2022 · $807k
  • MS
    MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
    5× · 2017–2022 · $425k

Funded once

  • 9G
    9999 GRANTS SUBSIDY
    one grant, 2021 · $865k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
    one grant, 2017 · $45k
  • RO
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO
    one grant, 2018 · $32k
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
04the grantee network

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2022.

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 2022, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 11 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
0/0
Grantees still filing
0/0
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK: $1,048,292 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK9999 GRANTS SUBSIDY: $864,519 · Other9999 GRANTS SUBSIDYUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $806,762 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVISMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $425,403 · OtherMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITYTEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH: $390,049 · OtherTEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCHOREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $274,705 · OtherOREGON STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA- DAVIS: $273,925 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA- DAVISUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $210,745 · Other+3 more: $102,200 · Other
Other$4,396,600

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

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 11 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 2022, released 2022. 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 FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Bee Informed Partnership’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