Skip to content
Extension Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Extension Foundation

The specific purpose for which the corporation is organized is to help cooperative extension professionals make a viable and measurable impact on local issues.

$4.7M
Granted FY2024still arriving
51
Grants FY2024still arriving
49
States reached
$507k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2024.

Science & Tech$6.8MEducation$4.3MEnvironment$2.3MPhilanthropy$689kYouth Development$600kFood & Nutrition$154kInternational$132kAnimals$29kOther$0
02FY2024 · 51 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 51 grants below total $4,032,918, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,692,461 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $659,543 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $36k
  • $10k–50k15 grants · $403k
  • $50k–250k30 grants · $3.1M
  • $250k+1 grant · $507k
$69,553
Median grant
49
States reached
$4.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY$507,481
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY$187,315
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY$186,273
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA$184,999
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA$158,729
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE$139,862
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE$133,956
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND$133,710
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY$122,271
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY$118,073
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE$115,139
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY$109,014
CORNELL UNIVERSITY$104,546
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS$103,011
AUBURN UNIVERSITY$102,114
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 86% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $87k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: $150k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO: $72k → 16%PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $349k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $88k → 16%CORNELL UNIVERSITY: $393k → 16%NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY: $224k → 23%CLEMSON UNIVERSITY: $118k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS: $220k → 17%1890S UNIVERSITIES FOUNDATION: $132k → 14%AUBURN UNIVERSITY: $224k → 15%LINCOLN UNIVERSITY: $70k → 10%EDUWORKS: $250k → 18%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $235k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND: $70k → 7%UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY: $199k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA: $424k → 27%PURDUE UNIVERSITY: $100k → 19%OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $186k → 15%WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY: $507k → 11%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $187k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $224k → 19%MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY: $454k → 24%RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY: $241k → 8%VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE: $224k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: $218k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $241k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: $234k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: $115k → 10%PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $91k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $76k → 16%CORNELL UNIVERSITY: $105k → 16%NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY: $75k → 23%AUBURN UNIVERSITY: $102k → 15%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $224k → 18%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $93k → 8%UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY: $74k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA: $155k → 27%PURDUE UNIVERSITY: $69k → 19%WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY: $324k → 11%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $95k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $103k → 19%MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY: $122k → 24%VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE: $140k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $134k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA: $78k → 27%WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY: $140k → 11%MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY: $112k → 24%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
ID
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
OK
LA
MS
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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$15M · 58 repeat orgs$489k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +45% since the first grant, against +25% for those funded once.

58 repeat relationships: 50 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

58
7

Total granted

$15M
$471k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
+25%

Still filing today

7%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $18k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’21’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’21’23’24
EducationInternationalOther
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

  • Cornell University
    6× · 2018–2024 · $560k · revenue +49%
  • UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
    7× · 2017–2024 · $341k · revenue +37%
  • UO
    University of Kentucky Research Foundation
    5× · 2019–2024 · $195k · revenue +45%

Funded once

  • E
    EDUWORKS
    one grant, 2021 · $250k
  • 1U
    1890 UNIVERSITIES FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $132k · revenue -23%
  • NC
    NORTH CAROLINA A & T STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2021 · $27k
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

6 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. 6 of the 66 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY: $1,032,035 · OtherWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA: $776,556 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF GEORGIAMISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY: $730,449 · OtherPENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $536,128 · Other+59 more: $11,120,701 · Other+59 moreCornell University: $560,229 · EducationUniversity of Kentucky Research Foundation: $194,977 · Education1890 UNIVERSITIES FOUNDATION: $132,489 · International
Other$14,195,869Education$755,206International$132,489

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 budgetCornell University: $560,229 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: $341,245 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Kentucky Research Foundation: $194,977 over 5y, 0.0% of budget1890 UNIVERSITIES FOUNDATION: $132,489 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: $57,874 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNAVAJO TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY: $10,000 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 Cornell University ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE ↗
  • Who funds University of Kentucky Research Foundation ↗
  • Who funds 1890 UNIVERSITIES FOUNDATION ↗

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.

National 4-H CouncilAmerican Chemical Soc…Foundation for Food a…Cornell UniversityNational Collegiate A…Educational Credit Ma…Folds of Honor Founda…National Fish and Wil…AmericaviewTulsa Community Found…West Virginia Univers…Ascendium Education S…
National 4-H CouncilDC19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National 4-H Council · American Chemical Society · Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research · Cornell University · National Collegiate Athletic Association · Educational Credit Management Corporation · Folds of Honor Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Americaview · Tulsa Community Foundation · West Virginia University Research Corporation · Ascendium Education Solutions Inc

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

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 28%
  • University of Delaware: 28% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
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 Extension Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Extension 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 66 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Extension’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