Skip to content
Heb Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Heb Foundation

Its FY2021 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$34k
Granted FY2021
7
Grants FY2021
3
States reached
$7k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2021.

Environment$30kArts & Culture$19kHealth$8kCivil Rights$7kYouth Development$5kEducation$4kOther$0
02FY2021 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AM$6,500
ACLU FOUNDATION$6,500
SOLAR UNITED NEIGHBORS$6,200
SHIRLEY HEINZE LAND TR INC$5,000
INDIANA 4-H FOUNDATION$5,000
INDIANA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$4,000
MISCELLANEOUS$735
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 (FY18–21) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 91% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%OCEANA: $10k → 14%RED ARROW CAMP: $3k → 17%SHIRLEY HEINZE LAND TR INC: $5k → 9%HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: $3k → 16%INDIANA 4-H FOUNDATION: $5k → 19%MISCELLANEOUS: $735 → 14%SOLAR UNITED NEIGHBORS: $6k → 14%SHIRLEY HEINZE LAND TR INC: $2k → 9%HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: $2k → 16%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CANCER: $1k → 14%WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $2k → 14%SHIRLEY HEINZE LAND TR INC: $500 → 9%137 FILMS: $10k → 14%137 FILMS: $9k → 14%NORTHWESTERN UNIVVERSITY: $18k → 14%ACLU FOUNDATION: $7k → 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

32%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$30k · 3 repeat orgs$63k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +188% since the first grant, against -9% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2021, 2 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
6

Total granted

$30k
$35k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+188%
-9%

Still filing today

67%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21
EnvironmentHealthYouth DevelopmentEducationInternationalAnimalsOther
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

  • 1F
    137 FILMS
    2× · 2018–2019 · $19k
  • SH
    SHIRLEY HEINZE LAND TRUST INC
    3× · 2019–2021 · $7k · revenue +134%
  • HE
    Hoosier Environmental Council Inc
    2× · 2018–2020 · $4k · revenue +188%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $18k
  • OI
    OCEANA INC
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue -33%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $3k
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
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
2
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

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
Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

This member-supported organization protects and restores iowa's land, water and wildlife for future generations. priorities include permanent land protection, promotion of improved land management and bringing new conservation…

Environment
5
Int'l Union for Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources - Us

Iucn-us fund builds bridges between us donors and iucn by catalyzing, accelerating, funding and promoting iucn's work - conserving nature and natural resources in the united states and throughout the world.

Environment
6
Fsc I&P

Fsc i&p promotes environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests. this mission aligns with the forest stewardship council (fsc), its network of offices, and other organizations.…

Philanthropy
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
International Institute for Energy Conservation

To promote the use of efficient and sustainable energy resources

—
11
Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech
12
International Rivers Network

International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is World Resources Institute; the most unlike its peers is Center for Biological Diversity 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

9 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. 9 of the 15 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

137 FILMS: $18,500 · Other137 FILMSIndividual grant recipient: $18,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientACLU FOUNDATION: $6,500 · OtherACLU FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $2,500 · Other+2 more: $1,735 · OtherOCEANA INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentOCEANA INCSHIRLEY HEINZE LAND TRUST INC: $7,000 · EnvironmentSHIRLEY HEINZE LAND TRUST INCSolar United Neighbors Inc: $6,200 · EnvironmentSolar United Neighbors IncHoosier Environmental Council Inc: $4,000 · EnvironmentHoosier Environmental Council IncPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $6,500 · HealthINDIANA 4-H FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentIndiana University Foundation: $4,000 · EducationWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $1,500 · InternationalCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $1,500 · Animals
Other$47,235Environment$27,200Health$6,500Youth Development$5,000Education$4,000International$1,500Animals$1,500

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 budgetOCEANA INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHIRLEY HEINZE LAND TRUST INC: $7,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $6,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSolar United Neighbors Inc: $6,200 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetINDIANA 4-H FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetIndiana University Foundation: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHoosier Environmental Council Inc: $4,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $1,500 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Heb Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Heb 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%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 15 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 Heb’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