Skip to content

· Private foundation

Chino Cienega Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$575k
Granted FY2025still arriving
24
Grants FY2025still arriving
10
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

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

International$1.1MEducation$561kCivil Rights$560kPhilanthropy$400kCommunity Improvement$193kPublic Benefit$140kEmployment$110kEnvironment$104kOther$0
02FY2025 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $30k
  • $10k–50k12 grants · $245k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $300k
$20,000
Median grant
10
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HENRY L STIMSON CENTER$50,000
WAR LEGACIES PROJECT$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION$50,000
FRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEW$50,000
HENRY L STIMSON CENTER$50,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE$50,000
ASHOKA$30,008
LAUDATO SI' MOVEMENT$25,000
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK$25,000
A ROCHA USA$25,000
NEO PHILANTROPHY INC$20,000
NEW PA PROJECT$20,000
WORKING AMERICA$20,000
FOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY$20,000
NOTLEY IMPACT$20,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 71% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%ACCELERATE CHANGE INC: $40k → 16%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $60k → 22%TIDES FOUNDATION: $25k → 10%FRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEW: $50k → 17%A ROCHA: $30k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $50k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $26k → 9%A ROCHA USA: $25k → 7%FRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEW: $50k → 6%ASHOKA: $30k → 7%WAR LEGACIES PROJECT: $50k → 9%ACCELERATE CHANGE INC: $40k → 16%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $60k → 22%FRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEW: $30k → 17%A ROCHA: $30k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $50k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $25k → 9%FRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEW: $50k → 6%ASHOKA: $30k → 7%WAR LEGACIES PROJECT: $50k → 9%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $50k → 22%LIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%A ROCHA: $27k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $30k → 12%WAR LEGACIES PROJECT: $50k → 9%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $50k → 22%A ROCHA: $25k → 10%WAR LEGACIES PROJECT: $50k → 9%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $40k → 22%WAR LEGACIES PROJECT: $50k → 9%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $40k → 22%WAR LEGACIES PROJECT: $50k → 9%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $30k → 22%WAR LEGACIES PROJECT: $50k → 9%WAR LEGACIES PROJECT: $50k → 9%HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $60k → 14%WORKING AMERICA: $50k → 14%HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $60k → 14%HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $50k → 14%HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $50k → 14%HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $50k → 14%HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $30k → 14%GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 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

VT
WA
MN
IL
NY
MA
OR
IN
PA
CA
CO
VA
MD
NC
DC
AL
TX
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 16% of Chino Cienega Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Chino Cienega Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 15% 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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.9M · 30 repeat orgs$365k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +42% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

30 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
18

Total granted

$2.9M
$260k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
0%

Still filing today

60%
44%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $105k 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
EducationInternationalCivil RightsPublic BenefitEnvironmentArts & CultureOther
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

  • WL
    WAR LEGACIES PROJECT INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $425k · revenue +42% · 53% of their budget
  • TH
    THE HENRY L STIMSON CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $377k · revenue +153%
  • TG
    The George Washington University
    7× · 2017–2023 · $320k · revenue +30%

Funded once

  • AC
    ACCELERATE CHANGE INC
    one grant, 2024 · $80k · revenue -7%
  • GG
    Ground Game Fund
    one grant, 2024 · $20k · revenue 0%
  • VN
    VIETNAMESE NOM PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2017 · $20k · 52% of their budget
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
Global Policy Forum Inc

Research and education of United Nations activities

International
2
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education
3
The Fund for Peace Inc

Building bridges across diverse sectors, and developing innovative technologies and tools for policy makers. a leader in the conflict assessment and early warning field, the fund for peace focuses on the problems of weak and failing…

International
4
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
5
Foreign Policy Research Institute

The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…

International
6
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…

International
7
Observer Research Foundation America

Organization mission the observer research foundation america orf america is an independent, non-partisan, and nonprofit organization in washington dc dedicated to addressing policy challenges facing the united states, india, and their…

International
8
Center for Arms Control and

A nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to enhancing international peace and security in the 21st century, thereby retaining its focus on nuclear weapons but expanding to include other present emerging security threats.

International
9
Center for International Policy Inc

The center for international policy is a woman-led, progressive, independent nonprofit center for research, education, and advocacy working to advance a more peaceful, just, and sustainable u.s. approach to foreign policy. through…

International
10
Institute for New Global Politics Inc

The Institute for New Global Politics is a California-based educational nonprofit corporation organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes. It is an independent and nonpartisan thinktank dedicated to educating the general…

International
11
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
12
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…

Social Science
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Accelerate Change Inc; the most unlike its peers is Fourth Freedom Forum Inc. 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

34 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. 34 of the 57 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
32/34
Grantees still filing
19/34
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $375,000 · OtherAMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEEFRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEW: $168,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEWA ROCHA: $167,000 · OtherA ROCHAWORKING AMERICA: $110,000 · OtherWORKING AMERICAIUCN: $48,575 · Other+27 more: $353,000 · Other+27 moreWAR LEGACIES PROJECT INC: $425,000 · EducationWAR LEGACIES PROJECT INCThe George Washington University: $320,000 · EducationThe George Washington UniversityUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $130,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATIO…UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $71,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDAT…+2 more: $30,000 · EducationTHE HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $376,500 · InternationalTHE HENRY L STIMSON CEN…ASHOKA: $190,516 · InternationalASHOKAFRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEW: $100,000 · InternationalFRIENDS OF PROJECT RENE…PEACE DIRECT INC: $25,000 · International+2 more: $19,000 · InternationalACCELERATE CHANGE INC: $80,000 · Civil RightsNew Pennsylvania Project: $40,000 · Civil RightsEARTHRIGHTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $35,000 · Civil RightsFOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY FUND: $20,000 · Civil RightsColorado Times Recorder: $15,000 · Civil RightsLIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION: $115,000 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUNDATION: $25,000 · PhilanthropyA ROCHA USA INC A ROCHA USA: $45,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK: $40,000 · EnvironmentRTC IMPACT FUND: $15,000 · EnvironmentNEO Philanthropy Inc: $32,800 · Public BenefitGround Game Fund: $20,000 · Public BenefitCenter for Common Ground: $15,000 · Public Benefit
Other$1,221,575Education$976,000International$711,016Civil Rights$190,000Philanthropy$140,000Environment$100,000Public Benefit$67,800

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 budgetWAR LEGACIES PROJECT INC: $425,000 over 9y, 53% of budgetTHE HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $376,500 over 9y, 0.5% of budgetThe George Washington University: $320,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetASHOKA: $190,516 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $130,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION: $115,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetWORKING AMERICA: $110,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetFRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEW: $100,000 over 2y, 26% of budgetACCELERATE CHANGE INC: $80,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $71,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetA ROCHA USA INC A ROCHA USA: $45,000 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK: $40,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetNew Pennsylvania Project: $40,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetEARTHRIGHTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $35,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $32,800 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPEACE DIRECT INC: $25,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetACTION YOUTH MEDIA INC: $25,000 over 3y, 4.7% of budgetGround Game Fund: $20,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetFOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY FUND: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetVIETNAMESE NOM PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 52% of budgetColorado Times Recorder: $15,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of Palm Springs: $15,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetFUND FOR RECONCILIATION & DEVELOPMENT: $15,000 over 4y, 13% of budgetCenter for Common Ground: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetEAST-WEST MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFOURTH FREEDOM FORUM INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTHE DESERT BIENNIAL DBA DESERT X: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FILMMAKERS COLLABORATIVE INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% 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 WAR LEGACIES PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds THE HENRY L STIMSON CENTER ↗
  • Who funds The George Washington University ↗
  • Who funds ASHOKA ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WORKING AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF PROJECT RENEW ↗
  • Who funds ACCELERATE CHANGE INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds A ROCHA USA INC A ROCHA USA ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds New Pennsylvania Project ↗
  • Who funds EARTHRIGHTS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
  • Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
  • Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PEACE DIRECT INC ↗
  • Who funds ACTION YOUTH MEDIA INC ↗
  • Who funds Ground Game Fund ↗
  • Who funds FOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY FUND ↗
  • Who funds VIETNAMESE NOM PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds NOTLEY IMPACT ↗
  • Who funds Colorado Times Recorder ↗
  • Who funds RTC IMPACT FUND ↗
  • Who funds Boys & Girls Club of Palm Springs ↗
  • Who funds FUND FOR RECONCILIATION & DEVELOPMENT ↗
  • Who funds Center for Common Ground ↗

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.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund IncNY15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc · Foundation to Promote Open Society · The McKnight Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Chino Cienega Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chino Cienega Foundation. 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 3%
  • Action Youth Media Inc: 3% of income from government
  • The Filmmakers Collaborative Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely 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 Chino Cienega Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Chino Cienega 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 57 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 Chino Cienega’s filings →

More from the funding graph