Skip to content
Forsythia Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Forsythia Foundation Inc

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.

$1.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
17
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$175k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$4.9MHealth$1.4MEducation$525kHuman Services$365kCivil Rights$302kPublic Benefit$300kArts & Culture$100kFood & Nutrition$25kOther$0
02FY2024 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $140k
  • $50k–250k12 grants · $1.0M
$50,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$34M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TOXIC-FREE FUTURE$175,000
HEALTHY BUILDING NETWORK$150,000
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW$100,000
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE$100,000
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP$75,000
NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL$75,000
EARTHJUSTICE$75,000
THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES$50,000
PUBLIC HEALTH WATCH$50,000
CLEAN PRODUCTION ACTION$50,000
TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY$50,000
GREEN SCIENCE POLICY INSTITUTE$50,000
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK$30,000
COMMONWEAL$30,000
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO$30,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY18–24, $415k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 37% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%COMMONWEAL: $60k → 8%COMMONWEALTH: $50k → 8%COMMONWEAL: $30k → 8%COMMONWEAL: $30k → 8%COMMONWEAL: $30k → 8%COMMONWEAL: $30k → 8%COMMONWEAL: $30k → 8%THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES: $50k → 14%THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES: $30k → 14%THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES: $25k → 14%THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES: $25k → 14%THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES: $25k → 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

ME
WA
MT
IL
MI
NY
MA
CA
VA
MD
DC
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$6.6M · 23 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

23 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
13

Total granted

$6.6M
$877k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+25%
+41%

Still filing today

91%
31%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $225k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentEducationHealthHuman ServicesArts & CulturePublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • H
    HABITABLE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $835k · revenue +174%
  • TF
    TOXIC-FREE FUTURE F/K/A WASHINGTON TOXICS COALITION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $705k · revenue +124%
  • EW
    ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP
    8× · 2017–2024 · $600k · revenue +57%

Funded once

  • RI
    RESOLVE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $200k · revenue +41%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $150k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO
    one grant, 2017 · $100k
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
Center for Responsible Science
Philanthropy
2
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
3
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
4
Conservation Law Foundation Inc

Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…

Environment
5
International Council On Environmental Economics and Development Union
Human Services
6
Fresh Energy

Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.

Environment
7
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
8
Environment Now
—
9
Ocean Conservancy

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

Environment
10
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.

Education
11
Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah

Heal utah's mission is to protect utah's environment and its people by promoting clean air, clean energy, and comprehensive solutions to radioactive and toxic waste.

Environment
12
Silent Spring Institute Inc

Silent spring institute is dedicated to advancing science on the influence of environmental chemicals on women's health, with a focus on breast cancer prevention.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Defend Our Health; the most unlike its peers is Intl Society for Childrens Health. 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

30 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. 30 of the 40 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
29/30
Grantees still filing
18/30
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TOXIC-FREE FUTURE F/K/A WASHINGTON TOXICS COALITION: $705,000 · EnvironmentTOXIC-FREE FUTURE F/K/A WASHINGTON TOXICS COALIT…ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP: $600,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUPEARTHJUSTICE: $570,000 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICEGREEN SCIENCE POLICY INSTITUTE: $350,000 · EnvironmentGREEN SCIENCE POLICY INSTITUTEDEFEND OUR HEALTH: $315,000 · EnvironmentDEFEND OUR HEALTHCLEAN PRODUCTION ACTION INC: $250,000 · EnvironmentCLEAN PRODUCTION ACTION INCNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $150,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK: $135,000 · Environment+5 more: $325,000 · Environment+5 moreHABITABLE: $835,000 · Public Safety & DisasterHABITABLEUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $400,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY …The George Washington University: $175,000 · EducationThe George …THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $150,000 · EducationTHE TRUSTEE…UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY …BREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS: $500,000 · HealthBREAST CAN…Center for Environmental Health: $255,000 · HealthCenter for…Individual grant recipient: $150,000 · OtherIndividual grant re…UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $100,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIF…KITCHEN TABLE CAMPAIGNS: $85,000 · OtherKITCHEN TABLE CAMPA…Individual grant recipient: $75,000 · OtherIndividual grant re…THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $60,000 · OtherCLEAN PRODUCTION ACTION: $50,000 · OtherENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: $50,000 · OtherTEXAS DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION: $50,000 · OtherRESOLVE INC: $200,000 · OtherRESOLVE INCCONSUMER REPORTS INC: $200,000 · OtherCONSUMER REPORTS IN…PUBLIC HEALTH WATCH INC: $100,000 · OtherPUBLIC HEALTH WATCH…THE TEXAS DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION: $50,000 · OtherCENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC: $100,000 · OtherCENTER FOR INTERNAT…+4 more: $77,000 · Other+4 moreCOMMONWEAL: $260,000 · Human ServicesTHE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES: $155,000 · Human ServicesVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC: $300,000 · Community Improvement
Environment$3,400,000Public Safety & Disaster$835,000Education$825,000Health$755,000Other$1,347,000Human Services$415,000Community Improvement$300,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHABITABLE: $835,000 over 8y, 6.0% of budgetTOXIC-FREE FUTURE F/K/A WASHINGTON TOXICS COALITION: $705,000 over 8y, 4.9% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP: $600,000 over 8y, 1.2% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $570,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetBREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS: $500,000 over 8y, 3.7% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $400,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetGREEN SCIENCE POLICY INSTITUTE: $350,000 over 7y, 4.2% of budgetDEFEND OUR HEALTH: $315,000 over 7y, 6.8% of budgetVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC: $300,000 over 6y, 0.6% of budgetCOMMONWEAL: $260,000 over 7y, 1.3% of budgetCenter for Environmental Health: $255,000 over 5y, 1.4% of budgetCLEAN PRODUCTION ACTION INC: $250,000 over 5y, 4.6% of budgetRESOLVE INC: $200,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetCONSUMER REPORTS INC: $200,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetThe George Washington University: $175,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES: $155,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $150,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $150,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK: $135,000 over 5y, 5.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES: $100,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetEnvironmental Law Institute: $100,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetPUBLIC HEALTH WATCH INC: $100,000 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC: $100,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetKITCHEN TABLE CAMPAIGNS: $85,000 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetSustainable Purchasing Council Inc SustainablePurchasingLeadershipCouncil: $50,000 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetTHE TEXAS DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetHEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARM: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetINTL SOCIETY FOR CHILDRENS HEALTH: $25,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetTHE ROSE FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITIES THE ENVIRONMENT: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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 Passport Foundati…Maine Community Found…The Marisla FoundationResources Legacy FundThe Fine FundThe John Merck FundNew Venture FundLisa & Douglas Goldma…ImpactassetsincThe Jeremy and Hannel…Cloud Mountain Founda…The Bullitt Foundation
The Passport FoundationDE34.8× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Passport Foundation · Maine Community Foundation Inc · The Marisla Foundation · Resources Legacy Fund · The Fine Fund · The John Merck Fund · New Venture Fund · Lisa & Douglas Goldman Fund · Impactassetsinc · The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust · Cloud Mountain Foundation · The Bullitt 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 Forsythia Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Forsythia Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 Forsythia Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Forsythia Foundation Inc 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 40 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 Forsythia’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