Skip to content
Clem C Glass Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Clem C Glass Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$61k
Granted FY2021
22
Grants FY2021
9
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Clem C Glass Foundation’s FY2022 grant dollars went to Orange County Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2022 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2021, the last year Clem C Glass Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 16 organizations, $61k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

24
’17
21
’18
22
’19
19
’20
16
’21
0
’22

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Philanthropy$1.1MEnvironment$111kCivil Rights$49kInternational$23kArts & Culture$16kHealth$12kPublic Benefit$8kYouth Development$7kOther$0
02FY2021 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE WOODEN FLOOR$5,000
TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND$4,000
PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL$4,000
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER$4,000
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND$4,000
EARTHJUSTICE$3,500
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY$3,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE$3,000
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS$3,000
NATURE CONSERVANCY$3,000
ENGENDER HEALTH$3,000
ACLU FOUNDATION$3,000
HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES$3,000
NATIONAL RESOURCES DEF COUNCIL$2,000
Individual grant recipient$2,000
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 (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL: $4k → 8%OXFAM AMERICA: $2k → 16%THE WOODEN FLOOR: $5k → 10%EARTHJUSTICE: $4k → 10%HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $3k → 14%NATIONAL RESOURCES DEF COUNCIL: $2k → 17%POPULATION CONNECTION: $2k → 14%SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: $4k → 18%ACLU FOUNDATION: $3k → 8%SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE: $2k → 8%NATURE CONSERVANCY: $3k → 7%PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL: $2k → 8%OXFAM AMERICA: $2k → 16%THE WOODEN FLOOR: $4k → 10%EARTHJUSTICE: $4k → 10%HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $2k → 14%NATIONAL RESOURCES DEF COUNCIL: $2k → 17%SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: $3k → 18%SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE: $2k → 8%NATURE CONSERVANCY: $3k → 7%PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL: $2k → 8%OXFAM AMERICA: $2k → 16%THE WOODEN FLOOR: $3k → 10%EARTHJUSTICE: $4k → 10%SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: $3k → 18%NATURE CONSERVANCY: $3k → 7%THE WOODEN FLOOR: $3k → 10%SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: $3k → 18%NATURE CONSERVANCY: $3k → 7%THE WOODEN FLOOR: $3k → 10%EARTHJUSTICE: $4k → 10%SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: $3k → 18%NATURE CONSERVANCY: $3k → 7%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $4k → 10%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE: $3k → 14%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $3k → 10%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $3k → 10%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $3k → 10%ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1.1M → 10%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $3k → 10%CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: $3k → 17%ENGENDER HEALTH: $3k → 14%CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: $3k → 17%CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: $3k → 17%CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: $3k → 17%ACLU FOUNDATION: $3k → 17%ACLU FOUNDATION: $3k → 17%THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $3k → 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

MT
NY
MA
OR
CA
UT
VA
DC
AL
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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$212k · 25 repeat orgs$12k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +62% since the first grant, against -5% for those funded once.

25 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2021, 7 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call). Read against FY2021, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
3

Total granted

$212k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
-5%

Still filing today

88%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21
EnvironmentInternationalCivil RightsRecreation & SportsArts & CultureCrime & LegalOther
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

  • TW
    THE WOODEN FLOOR FOR YOUTH MOVEMENT
    5× · 2017–2021 · $16k · revenue +10%
  • SP
    SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $16k · revenue +10%
  • THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
    5× · 2017–2021 · $16k · revenue +109%

Funded once

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +202%
  • AI
    ACCION INTERNATIONAL
    one grant, 2017 · $500 · revenue -5%
  • AI
    AFS-USA INC
    one grant, 2017 · $500 · revenue -27%
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
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
2
Rainforest Foundation Inc

The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.

Environment
3
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
4
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
5
Asociacion Interamericana Para La Defensa Del Ambiente

To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.

Crime & Legal
6
Friends of the Earth

Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…

Environment
7
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc

We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…

Environment
8
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
9
Cdp North America Inc

Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…

Environment
10
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
11
Natural Resource Governance Institute

Nrgi envisions a world where natural resources enable fair, prosperous and sustainable societies, instead of undermining them. nrgi exists because decisions about how natural resources are governed determine the well-being of people in…

International
12
Oceana Inc

To advocate for policy changes by governments and corporations in order to preserve ocean life and return the oceans to their former abundance.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Trust for Public Land; the most unlike its peers is Guttmacher Institute Inc. 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

28 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 28 of the 33 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
28/28
Grantees still filing
24/28
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,114,428 · PhilanthropyORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $16,000 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICE: $14,000 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $11,500 · EnvironmentSouthern Utah Wilderness Alliance: $9,000 · EnvironmentTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $8,500 · EnvironmentNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $8,000 · EnvironmentTREEPEOPLE INC: $4,000 · EnvironmentSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE: $4,000 · Environment+2 more: $4,000 · EnvironmentTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $15,000 · OtherNATIONAL RESOURCES DEF COUNCIL: $9,000 · OtherWE ARE GROUNDSWELL: $8,000 · OtherPROJECT VOTE SMART: $7,500 · OtherGuttmacher Institute Inc: $6,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $6,000 · OtherACLU FOUNDATION: $3,000 · OtherENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE: $3,000 · OtherHOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $7,000 · OtherYOSEMITE FOUNDATION: $5,000 · OtherPOPULATION CONNECTION: $6,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES: $2,950 · Other+1 more: $2,000 · OtherPATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL: $12,000 · InternationalOXFAM-AMERICA INC: $10,000 · InternationalENGENDERHEALTH INC: $3,000 · International+2 more: $1,000 · InternationalTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $14,000 · Civil RightsAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $8,000 · Civil RightsTHE WOODEN FLOOR FOR YOUTH MOVEMENT: $16,000 · Arts & CultureSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $16,000 · Crime & Legal
Philanthropy$1,114,428Environment$79,000Other$80,450International$26,000Civil Rights$22,000Arts & Culture$16,000Crime & Legal$16,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,114,428 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTHE WOODEN FLOOR FOR YOUTH MOVEMENT: $16,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $16,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $16,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $15,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $14,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $14,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetPATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL: $12,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $11,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetOXFAM-AMERICA INC: $10,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetSouthern Utah Wilderness Alliance: $9,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $8,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetWE ARE GROUNDSWELL: $8,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $8,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $8,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $7,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGuttmacher Institute Inc: $6,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetPOPULATION CONNECTION: $6,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetYOSEMITE FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTREEPEOPLE INC: $4,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE: $4,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetENGENDERHEALTH INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES: $2,950 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetGREENPEACE FUND INC: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetACCION INTERNATIONAL: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAFS-USA INC: $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.

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.

The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Bank of America Charitable Foundation IncNC9.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Clem C Glass Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Clem C Glass Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Oxfam-America Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 33 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Clem C Glass’ 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