Skip to content
Forest Glen Impact Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Forest Glen Impact 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.

$75k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$75k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Human Services$205kFood & Nutrition$125kAnimals$80kReligion$65kInternational$45k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$75,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$7.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SHAOHANNAHS HOPE INC$75,000
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 (FY22–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 52% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 9%HAPPY HOLLOW CORPORATION: $10k → 8%NOVO MISSION INC: $35k → 10%CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA: $15k → 10%MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION: $15k → 12%FEEDING AMERICA: $25k → 14%HAPPY HOLLOW CORPORATION: $10k → 8%CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA: $15k → 10%MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION: $15k → 12%FEEDING AMERICA: $20k → 14%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $40k → 8%CITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $15k → 8%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $40k → 8%CITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $15k → 8%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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$440k · 7 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$440k
$35k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’22’23’24
AnimalsFood & NutritionHuman ServicesReligionOther
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

  • SH
    SHAOHANNAHS HOPE INC dba SHOW HOPE
    4× · 2020–2024 · $205k · revenue -4%
  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY
    2× · 2022–2023 · $80k · revenue -1%
  • Feeding America
    2× · 2022–2023 · $45k · revenue +17%

Funded once

  • NM
    NOVO MISSION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $35k
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
San Francisco Food Bank

To end hunger in san francisco and marin counties by soliciting food donations nationally, distributing this food to qualifying public service agencies and neighborhood pantries, advocating for improved government food programs, and…

—
2
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
3
The Maryland Food Bank Inc

The maryland food bank is a nonprofit hunger-relief organization dedicated to feeding people, strengthening communities, and ending hunger for more marylanders.

—
4
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
5
City Harvest Inc

To end hunger in communities throughout new york city. (see schedule o)to end hunger in communities throughout new york city. we do this through food rescue and distribution, education, and other practical, innovative solutions.

Food & Nutrition
6
Denver Zoological Foundation

Inspiring communities to save wildlife for future generations.

Animals
7
Sweet Farm Foundation

Sweet farm is the world's first nonprofit sanctuary to address the devastating impact that factory farming has on climate change from the perspective of animals, plants, and the planet. we must first understand how these pieces are…

Animals
8
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
9
Wildlife Conservation Society

The wildlife conservation society (wcs) saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature.

Animals
10
For the Fishes

To address, educate, coordinate, and enhance enforcement capacity to end teh trade in coral reef wildlife for household and other small display aquariums. our supply and demand side strategies are directed locally and globally to…

Animals
11
American Humane Association

Founded in 1877, american humane association, dba american humane society (american humane) is committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals. our leadership programs are first to serve in promoting and nurturing the…

Animals
12
Project Drawdown

Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cityteam Ministries; the most unlike its peers is Happy Hollow Foundation. 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

8 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. 8 of the 9 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SHAOHANNAHS HOPE INC dba SHOW HOPE: $205,000 · Human ServicesSHAOHANNAHS HOPE INC dba SHOW HOPESECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $80,000 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON V…Feeding America: $45,000 · Food & NutritionFeeding AmericaCONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA: $30,000 · AnimalsCONSERVATION SOCI…MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION: $30,000 · AnimalsMONTEREY BAY AQUA…Happy Hollow Foundation: $20,000 · AnimalsHappy Hollow Foun…WORLD VISION INC: $45,000 · InternationalWORLD VIS…NOVO MISSION INC: $35,000 · OtherCITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $30,000 · Religion
Human Services$205,000Food & Nutrition$125,000Animals$80,000International$45,000Other$35,000Religion$30,000

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 budgetSHAOHANNAHS HOPE INC dba SHOW HOPE: $205,000 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $80,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD VISION INC: $45,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFeeding America: $45,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA: $30,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHappy Hollow Foundation: $20,000 over 2y, 1.5% 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.

Morgan Stanley Global…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN10.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Forest Glen Impact Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Forest Glen Impact 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 9 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 Forest Glen Impact’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