Skip to content
Cedar Tree Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Cedar Tree Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$9.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
119
Grants FY2024still arriving
32
States reached
$1.7M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Environment$23MHealth$3.5MEducation$3.3MFood & Nutrition$3.1MCivil Rights$2.6MCommunity Improvement$2.0MAnimals$1.4MPublic Benefit$1.3MOther$0
02FY2024 · 119 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k14 grants · $60k
  • $10k–50k42 grants · $963k
  • $50k–250k61 grants · $6.3M
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.9M
$50,000
Median grant
32
States reached
$86M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY$1,664,075
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH$250,000
SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY$247,430
ALL SOULS CHURCH UNITARIAN$200,000
PRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWA$175,000
CONSERVATORY LAB CHARTER SCHOOL FOUNDATION$160,000
CENTER FOR CIVIC POLICY$150,000
CHINESE PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION$150,000
INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL$150,000
CENTER FOR CIVIC POLICY$150,000
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT EDUCATION FUND$150,000
FLORIDA RISING TOGETHER$135,000
PIIKANI LODGE HEALTH INSTITUTE$130,000
WOMEN'S VOICES FOR THE EARTH$125,000
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP$125,000
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 (FY20–24, $421k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 94% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BEYOND BOND AND LEGAL DEFENSE: $8k → 10%NORTHEAST NATIVE NETWORK OF KINSHIP AND HEALING: $5k → 12%WOMEN IN RANCHING: $70k → 15%BEYOND BOND AND LEGAL DEFENSE: $8k → 10%BEYOND BOND AND LEGAL DEFENSE: $8k → 10%CHELSEA COLLABORATIVE: $50k → 16%CHELSEA COLLABORATIVE: $30k → 16%LA COLABORATIVA: $15k → 16%LA COLABORATIVA: $15k → 16%LA COLABORATIVA: $15k → 16%LA COLABORATIVA: $10k → 16%LA COLABORATIVA: $10k → 16%BRAVER ANGELS: $102k → 17%BEACON HOUSE COMMUNITY MINISTRY INC: $5k → 14%BEACON HOUSE COMMUNITY MINISTRY INC: $5k → 14%BEACON HOUSE COMMUNITY MINISTRY INC: $4k → 14%BEACON HOUSE COMMUNITY MINISTRY INC: $4k → 14%BEACON HOUSE COMMUNITY MINISTRY INC: $4k → 14%IMMIGRANT FAMILY SERVICES INSTITUTE (IFSI-USA): $10k → 16%IMMIGRANT FAMILY SERVICES INSTITUTE: $10k → 16%IMMIGRANT FAMILY SERVICES INSTITUTE (IFSI-USA): $10k → 16%IMMIGRANT FAMILY SERVICES INSTITUTE (IFSI-USA): $5k → 16%IMMIGRANT FAMILY SERVICES INSTITUTE (IFSI-USA): $5k → 16%IMMIGRANT FAMILY SERVICES INSTITUTE: $5k → 16%SMART FROM THE START INC: $10k → 16%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

AK
ME
VT
NH
WA
MT
ND
MN
WI
MI
NY
MA
SD
IA
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
CO
VA
MD
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
DC
HI
OK
LA
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$42M · 109 repeat orgs$2.5M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +25% since the first grant, against +19% for those funded once.

109 repeat relationships: 78 still active in FY2024, 31 since wound down; 26 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

109
40

Total granted

$42M
$1.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+25%
+19%

Still filing today

81%
65%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentEducationHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureCivil RightsOther
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

  • SF
    SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
    5× · 2020–2024 · $8.6M · revenue +137% · 99% of their budget
  • CL
    CONSERVATORY LAB FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $1.8M · revenue +210% · 58% of their budget
  • PF
    PRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWA
    5× · 2020–2024 · $880k · revenue +384%

Funded once

  • CL
    CONSERVATORY LAB CHARTER SCHOOL
    one grant, 2020 · $179k
  • UC
    UVM CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
    one grant, 2020 · $155k
  • DO
    DEFEND OUR HEALTH
    one grant, 2020 · $130k · revenue -41%
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
Taproot Earth

Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.

Environment
2
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
3
Development in Gardening

Development in Gardening is improving the nutrition and livelihoods of some of the world's most uniquely marginalized people by teaching them to plant regenerative gardens that grow health, wealth, and a sense of belonging.

Community Improvement
4
New Roots Institute

New Roots Institute is a nonprofit empowering the next generation with knowledge and training to end factory farming.

Food & Nutrition
5
Nature for Justice

To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.

Environment
6
The Commons Inc

To partner with individuals and organizations to access, organize, and share data that inspires action that restores our environment.

—
7
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
8
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
9
Earthworks

The Corporation is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes. Earthworks is dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible mineral and energy development while seeking…

Public Benefit
10
Better Future Project Inc

Better future project works to build a powerful grassroots movement to address the climate crisis and advance a rapid and responsible transition beyond fossil fuels. we educate the public about climate change, empower new leaders, and help…

Environment
11
Earthcorps

To cultivate leaders and community partnerships to advance environmental justice.

International
12
Boulder Watershed Collective

The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Soul Fire Farm Institute Inc; the most unlike its peers is Habitable. 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

143 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. 143 of the 181 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
33
Early backer (in before they grew)
142/143
Grantees still filing
88/143
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: $8,614,475 · EnvironmentSOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGYLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: $680,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP: $630,000 · EnvironmentCOMING CLEAN INC: $630,000 · EnvironmentWOMEN'S VOICES FOR THE EARTH: $630,000 · EnvironmentSHERIFF'S MEADOW FOUNDATION: $570,000 · Environment+24 more: $4,074,000 · Environment+24 moreALTERNATIVE FOUNDATION: $4,791,841 · OtherALTERNATIVE FOUNDATIONALL SOULS CHURCH UNITARIAN: $1,000,000 · OtherPRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWA: $880,000 · OtherNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY: $730,000 · OtherEVKIDS INC: $700,000 · OtherCENTER FOR CIVIC POLICY: $800,000 · Other+89 more: $11,149,990 · Other+89 moreCONSERVATORY LAB FOUNDATION INC: $1,755,000 · EducationCOLORADO PLATEAU FOUNDATION: $200,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOUNDATION INC: $160,000 · Education+12 more: $271,500 · EducationCenter for Environmental Health: $630,000 · HealthTHE CENTER FOR BLACK WOMEN'S WELLNESS CBWW INC: $630,000 · HealthChildren's Environmental Health Network: $445,000 · HealthSILENT SPRING INSTITUTE INC: $210,000 · HealthRESILIENT SISTERHOOD PROJECT INC: $180,000 · HealthEVERGREEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT IN: $120,000 · HealthWomen With A Vision: $100,000 · Health+2 more: $25,000 · HealthADVANCEMENT PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $450,000 · Civil RightsSOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT: $445,000 · Civil RightsGeorgia Muslim Voter Project: $375,000 · Civil RightsWOMEN ENGAGED INC: $300,000 · Civil RightsFLORIDA RISING TOGETHER INC: $235,000 · Civil RightsNEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATION FUND INC: $102,000 · Civil Rights+4 more: $83,000 · Civil RightsTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $300,000 · Community ImprovementTHE URBAN FARMING INSTITUTE OF BOSTONINC: $228,000 · Community ImprovementBOSTON IMPACT INITIATIVE FUND: $200,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMON FUTURE: $180,000 · Community ImprovementALTERNATIVES FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT INC: $123,000 · Community ImprovementTHE WORKING WORLD INC: $90,000 · Community ImprovementVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC: $60,000 · Community ImprovementCENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY INC: $48,000 · Community Improvement+3 more: $68,000 · Community ImprovementEarth Force Inc: $443,000 · Human ServicesSEVENTH GENERATION FUND FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES INC: $302,000 · Human ServicesLA COLABORATIVA INC: $145,000 · Human ServicesNAEVA: $130,000 · Human ServicesBraver AngelsInc: $101,500 · Human ServicesWOMEN IN RANCHING INC: $70,000 · Human ServicesIMMIGRANT FAMILY SERVICES INSTITUTE INC: $45,000 · Human Services+4 more: $59,000 · Human Services
Environment$15,828,475Other$20,051,831Education$2,386,500Health$2,340,000Civil Rights$1,990,000Community Improvement$1,297,000Human Services$1,295,500

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 budgetSOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: $8,614,475 over 5y, 99% of budgetCONSERVATORY LAB FOUNDATION INC: $1,755,000 over 4y, 58% of budgetPRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWA: $880,000 over 5y, 4.8% of budgetCENTER FOR CIVIC POLICY: $800,000 over 3y, 7.2% of budgetEVKIDS INC: $700,000 over 5y, 27% of budgetLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: $680,000 over 5y, 6.0% of budgetPiikani Lodge Health Institute: $635,000 over 5y, 16% of budgetHABITABLE: $630,000 over 4y, 5.0% of budgetCenter for Environmental Health: $630,000 over 4y, 6.5% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP: $630,000 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetCOMING CLEAN INC: $630,000 over 5y, 6.1% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR BLACK WOMEN'S WELLNESS CBWW INC: $630,000 over 5y, 4.8% of budgetWOMEN'S VOICES FOR THE EARTH: $630,000 over 5y, 19% of budgetSHERIFF'S MEADOW FOUNDATION: $570,000 over 5y, 16% of budgetINTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL: $555,000 over 4y, 3.5% of budgetWINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: $525,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetWolfe's Neck Farm Foundation: $500,000 over 4y, 2.5% of budgetQUIVIRA COALITION INC: $455,000 over 5y, 7.2% of budgetWESTERN SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE: $455,000 over 5y, 17% of budgetDELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK: $455,000 over 4y, 6.6% of budgetADVANCEMENT PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $450,000 over 3y, 4.3% of budgetSOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT: $445,000 over 5y, 6.5% of budgetChildren's Environmental Health Network: $445,000 over 5y, 11% of budgetEarth Force Inc: $443,000 over 5y, 11% of budgetWest Harlem Environmental Action Inc: $435,000 over 4y, 2.6% of budgetGREENROOTS INC: $418,000 over 5y, 6.6% of budgetVINEYARD CONSERVATION SOCIETY INC: $400,000 over 5y, 12% of budgetTanka Fund: $395,000 over 5y, 26% of budgetCENTRO DEL OBRERO FRONTERIZO INC: $380,000 over 5y, 13% of budgetGeorgia Muslim Voter Project: $375,000 over 3y, 11% of budgetCITY BLOSSOMS INC: $363,000 over 5y, 11% of budgetECOLOGY CENTER: $355,000 over 3y, 6.6% of budgetSEVENTH GENERATION FUND FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES INC: $302,000 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $300,000 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetWOMEN ENGAGED INC: $300,000 over 3y, 6.3% of budgetSOLEBURY SCHOOL: $300,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetThe Beloved Community Center of Greensboro Inc: $300,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetWINDWARD FUND: $275,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNa'ah Illahee Fund: $250,000 over 4y, 2.2% of budgetFLORIDA RISING TOGETHER INC: $235,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetDefenders of Wildlife: $235,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTHE URBAN FARMING INSTITUTE OF BOSTONINC: $228,000 over 5y, 2.9% of budgetNEW ENGLAND GRASSROOTS ENVIRONMENT FUND INC: $210,000 over 4y, 2.2% of budgetSILENT SPRING INSTITUTE INC: $210,000 over 5y, 1.3% of budgetCOLORADO PLATEAU FOUNDATION: $200,000 over 4y, 3.5% of budgetBOSTON IMPACT INITIATIVE FUND: $200,000 over 4y, 3.4% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $190,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetRESILIENT SISTERHOOD PROJECT INC: $180,000 over 4y, 23% 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 SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATORY LAB FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWA ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR CIVIC POLICY ↗
  • Who funds EVKIDS INC ↗
  • Who funds LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds Piikani Lodge Health Institute ↗
  • Who funds HABITABLE ↗
  • Who funds Center for Environmental Health ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP ↗
  • Who funds COMING CLEAN INC ↗
  • Who funds THE CENTER FOR BLACK WOMEN'S WELLNESS CBWW INC ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN'S VOICES FOR THE EARTH ↗
  • Who funds SHERIFF'S MEADOW FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds WINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ↗
  • Who funds Wolfe's Neck Farm Foundation ↗
  • Who funds QUIVIRA COALITION INC ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE ↗
  • Who funds DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds ADVANCEMENT PROJECT EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds Children's Environmental Health Network ↗
  • Who funds Earth Force Inc ↗
  • Who funds West Harlem Environmental Action Inc ↗
  • Who funds GREENROOTS INC ↗
  • Who funds VINEYARD CONSERVATION SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds Tanka Fund ↗
  • Who funds CENTRO DEL OBRERO FRONTERIZO INC ↗
  • Who funds Georgia Muslim Voter Project ↗
  • Who funds CITY BLOSSOMS INC ↗
  • Who funds ECOLOGY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds SEVENTH GENERATION FUND FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND ↗

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.

Amalgamated Charitabl…PatagoniaorgCommon Counsel Founda…Rsf Social Finance IncImpactassetsincClif Family FoundationBoston Foundation IncThe Schmidt Family Fo…Tides FoundationWindward FundBarr FoundationMovement Strategy Cen…
Amalgamated Charitable Foundation IncDC47× affinity34 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Patagoniaorg · Common Counsel Foundation · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Impactassetsinc · Clif Family Foundation · Boston Foundation Inc · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Tides Foundation · Windward Fund · Barr Foundation · Movement Strategy Center

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 160%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Farm Aid Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Windham Regional Community Council Inc: 76% of income from government
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: 63% of income from government
  • Click Inc: 44% of income from government
  • Northeast Native Network of Kinship and: 44% of income from government
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
  • La Colaborativa Inc: 34% of income from government
  • Martha's Vineyard Community Foundation Inc: 34% of income from government
  • Ridge to Reefs Inc: 33% of income from government
  • Greater Lowell Community Foundation Inc: 18% of income from government
  • Silent Spring Institute Inc: 12% of income from government
  • Smart From the Start Inc: 7% of income from government
  • The Urban Farming Institute of Bostoninc: 4% of income from government
  • Evkids Inc: 4% of income from government
  • Sassafras Earth Education Inc: 3% of income from government
  • Sheriff's Meadow Foundation: 2% of income from government
  • Breakthrough Greater Boston Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Speak for the Trees Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Urbanity Dance Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Greenroots Inc: 1% of income from government
  • New England Conservatory of Music: 1% of income from government
  • Conservatory Lab Foundation Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Documentary Educational Resources Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Island Grown Initiative Ltd: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
16get 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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Cedar Tree Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Cedar Tree Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 181 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Cedar Tree’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