Skip to content
Eddema Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Eddema 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.

$3.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$1.3M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Environment$6.4MArts & Culture$4.1MHealth$2.2MPhilanthropy$1.3MEducation$411kYouth Development$282kCivil Rights$170kRecreation & Sports$100kOther$0
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $35k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $650k
  • $250k+4 grants · $2.6M
$249,797
Median grant
5
States reached
$38M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OAK PARK-RIVER FOREST COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$1,299,108
BATEMAN HORNE CENTER$500,898
Individual grant recipient$399,621
Individual grant recipient$399,614
GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSERVANCY$249,797
THE CHILDREN'S HOUSE MONTESSORI SCHOOL$99,974
ACLU FOUNDATION$99,974
FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN$99,974
GROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES$99,974
SEVEN GENERATIONS AHEAD$35,000
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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 76% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SOLVE ME: $400k → 14%ACLU FOUNDATION: $100k → 17%GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSER: $502k → 7%GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSERVANCY: $250k → 10%GROUNDWORK CENTER: $75k → 10%BATEMAN HORNE CENTER: $501k → 8%FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN: $101k → 14%SOLVE ME: $301k → 14%ACLU FOUNDATION: $25k → 17%FLOW WATER ADVOCATES: $400k → 7%GROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES: $100k → 10%GROUNDWORK CENTER: $50k → 10%BATEMAN HORNE CENTER: $301k → 8%FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN: $50k → 14%SOLVE ME: $202k → 14%ACLU FOUNDATION: $20k → 17%FOR LOVE OF WATER: $201k → 7%THE CHILDREN'S HOUSE MONTESSORI SCHOOL: $101k → 10%GROUNDWORK CENTER: $50k → 10%BATEMAN HORNE CENTER: $198k → 8%FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN: $25k → 14%SOLVE ME: $150k → 14%FOR LOVE OF WATER: $100k → 7%THE CHILDREN'S HOUSE MONTESSORI SCHOOL: $100k → 10%GROUNDWORK CENTER: $25k → 10%BATEMAN HORNE CENTER: $150k → 8%SOLVE ME: $100k → 14%GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSER: $85k → 7%CHILDREN'S HOUSE: $80k → 10%INTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $20k → 10%BATEMAN HORNE CENTER: $100k → 8%FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN: $100k → 14%SOLVE ME: $100k → 14%GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSER: $85k → 7%BATEMAN HORNE CENTER: $100k → 8%OAK PARK RIVER FOREST: $2.0M → 14%FOR LOVE OF WATER: $50k → 7%OAK PARK RIVER FOREST CMMTY FOUNDAT: $2.0M → 14%GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSER: $50k → 7%OAK PARK RIVER FOREST: $1.8M → 14%GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSER: $50k → 7%OAK PARK RIVER FOREST CMMTY FOUNDAT: $1.8M → 14%FOR LOVE OF WATER: $25k → 7%OAK PARK-RIVER FOREST COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1.3M → 14%FOR LOVE OF WATER: $20k → 7%OAK PARK RIVER FOREST: $1.0M → 14%OAK PARK RIVER FOREST CMMTY FOUNDAT: $400k → 14%PARKS FOUNDATION OF OAK PARK: $100k → 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.
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 8% of Eddema Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Eddema Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$14M · 11 repeat orgs$745k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +65% since the first grant, against -56% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
5

Total granted

$14M
$210k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+65%
-56%

Still filing today

45%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $535k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentHealthCivil RightsArts & CultureEducationReligionOther
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

  • BH
    BATEMAN HORNE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $1.3M · revenue +58%
  • GT
    GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSERVANCY
    6× · 2020–2025 · $1.0M · revenue +230%
  • FL
    FOR LOVE OF WATER
    5× · 2020–2024 · $396k · revenue +98%

Funded once

  • PF
    PARKS FOUNDATION OF OAK PARK
    one grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue -76%
  • CH
    CHILDREN'S HOUSE
    one grant, 2021 · $80k
  • IC
    INTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS
    one grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue -56%
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
Great Lakes Community Action Partnership

The mission of great lakes community action partnership is to create partnerships and opportunites to help individuals, families and communities thrive.

Human Services
2
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
3
Urban Land Conservancy

Urban land conservancy's mission is to acquire, develop, and/or preserve community assets in urban areas for a variety of community needs especially in high poverty, low-income, underserved, at-risk communities.

Community Improvement
4
Legacy Land Conservancy

Safeguard southern michigan's land and water to support diverse, resilient, and thriving communities - forever

Environment
5
Institute for Conservation Leadership

To support healthy communities and a healthy earth, the institute for conservation leadership strengthens leaders, organizations, coalitions and networks.

Community Improvement
6
Lake Champlain Land Trust Inc

The mission of the lake champlain land trust is to save the scenic beauty, natural communities, and recreational amenities of lake champlain by permanently preserving significant islands, shoreline areas, and natural communities in the…

Environment
7
Conservation Legacy

Conservation legacy engages future leaders who protect, restore, and enhance our nation's lands through community-based service.in 2024, conservation legacy engaged 2,524 participants who completed over 1.5 million service hours on public…

Youth Development
8
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
9
Leelanau Conservancy

To conserve the land, water and scenic character of leelanau county, and to provide educational programs to develop an understanding and appreciation of leelanau county's natural heritage.

Environment
10
Amazon Conservation Association

Amazon conservation unites science, people, and innovation to protect the amazon - the greatest wild forest on earth. as guardians of the most iconic forest on the planet, we bring together the power of the latest science and technology…

Environment
11
Great Peninsula Conservancy

Preserve in perpetuity the natural habitats, rural landscapes, and open spaces of the great peninsula of washington's puget sound.

Environment
12
The Land Trust for Tennessee Inc

To conserve the unique character of tennessee's natural and historic landscapes and sites for future generations.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Seven Generations Ahead; the most unlike its peers is Parks Foundation of Oak Park. 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

11 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. 11 of the 20 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OAK PARK RIVER FOREST: $4,822,874 · OtherOAK PARK RIVER FORESTOAK PARK RIVER FOREST CMMTY FOUNDAT: $4,110,000 · OtherOAK PARK RIVER FOREST CMMTY FOUNDATIndividual grant recipient: $1,252,192 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $399,614 · Other+6 more: $862,746 · Other+6 moreGRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSERVANCY: $1,022,168 · EnvironmentGRAND TRAV…FOR LOVE OF WATER: $396,002 · EnvironmentFOR LOVE O…+1 more: $35,000 · EnvironmentOAK PARK-RIVER FOREST COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,299,108 · PhilanthropyOAK PARK-…PARKS FOUNDATION OF OAK PARK: $100,000 · PhilanthropyPARKS FOU…BATEMAN HORNE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE: $1,349,786 · HealthBATEMAN H…AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $169,974 · Civil RightsINTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $20,000 · Arts & CultureLEGAL PREP CHARTER ACADEMIES: $10,000 · EducationBENZIE AREA CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORS INC: $10,000 · Religion
Other$11,447,426Environment$1,453,170Philanthropy$1,399,108Health$1,349,786Civil Rights$169,974Arts & Culture$20,000Education$10,000Religion$10,000

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 budgetBATEMAN HORNE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE: $1,349,786 over 6y, 11% of budgetOAK PARK-RIVER FOREST COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,299,108 over 1y, 19% of budgetGRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSERVANCY: $1,022,168 over 6y, 3.5% of budgetFOR LOVE OF WATER: $396,002 over 5y, 18% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $169,974 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetPARKS FOUNDATION OF OAK PARK: $100,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetGROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES INC: $99,974 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetINTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLEGAL PREP CHARTER ACADEMIES: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBENZIE AREA CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 BATEMAN HORNE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE ↗
  • Who funds OAK PARK-RIVER FOREST COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds FOR LOVE OF WATER ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PARKS FOUNDATION OF OAK PARK ↗
  • Who funds GROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds SEVEN GENERATIONS AHEAD ↗
  • Who funds INTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS ↗
  • Who funds LEGAL PREP CHARTER ACADEMIES ↗
  • Who funds BENZIE AREA CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORS INC ↗

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 Chicago Community…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Chicago Community TrustIL12.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Eddema Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Eddema Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Eddema Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Eddema 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 20 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 Eddema’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