Skip to content
Hunter Lewis Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Hunter Lewis 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.

$702k
Granted FY2024still arriving
27
Grants FY2024still arriving
13
States reached
$458k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Food & Nutrition$2.2MEducation$235kPhilanthropy$180kEnvironment$61kScience & Tech$45kHealth$37kInternational$30kYouth Development$17kOther$0
02FY2024 · 27 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k18 grants · $44k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $91k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $110k
  • $250k+1 grant · $458k
$5,000
Median grant
13
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
American Nutrition Association$458,000
Project Horseshoe Farm$109,505
American Friends of Georgia$20,000
Boys & Girls Club of Charlottesville$15,000
National Vaccine Information Center$15,000
UWA Cahaba Biodiversity Center$11,000
Real Organic Project$10,000
The Childrens Initiative$10,000
American School of Classical StudiesAthens$10,000
Childrens Health Defense$8,000
Tuesday Evening Concert Series$8,000
Informed Consent Action Network$7,000
Browntone Institute$5,000
Focused Ultrasound Foundation$5,000
Covenant House New York$2,500
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 (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 45% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 8%American Friends of Georgia: $20k → 8%Carnegie Mellon University: $200k → 11%Browntone Institute: $5k → 10%The Goodman Institute: $200 → 14%Tax Foundation: $1k → 14%Human Age Reversal Project: $1k → 13%Alabama Trust for Historical Preservation: $100 → 16%Project Horseshoe Farm: $303k → 23%UWA Cahaba Biodiversity Center: $11k → 31%Perry County Historical Society: $100 → 36%Unmet Needs ProgramVFW: $250 → 15%The Livestock Conservancy: $500 → 9%American Nutrition Association: $685k → 7%Childrens Health Defense: $8k → 7%National Vaccine Information Center: $15k → 4%Blue Ridge Area Food Bank: $100 → 8%Charlottesville Social Services: $20k → 8%Peachtree Collaborative: $120k → 12%Shelburne Farms: $2k → 10%Real Organic Project: $15k → 10%The Childrens Initiative: $10k → 7%Young Americans for Liberty: $1k → 10%Human Age Reversal Project: $1k → 13%Project Horseshoe Farm: $267k → 23%American Nutrition Association: $458k → 7%Boys & Girls Club of Charlottesville: $15k → 8%Peachtree Collaborative: $60k → 12%Real Organic Project: $15k → 10%Young Americans for Liberty: $1k → 10%Project Horseshoe Farm: $110k → 23%American Nutrition Association: $295k → 7%Tuesday Evening Concert Series: $8k → 8%Real Organic Project: $10k → 10%Project Horseshoe Farm: $50k → 23%American Nutrition Association: $35k → 7%Focused Ultrasound Foundation: $5k → 8%Real Organic Project: $10k → 10%Project Horseshoe Farm: $18k → 23%Crozet Volunteer Fire Dept: $100 → 8%Project Horseshoe Farm: $8k → 23%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
VT
IL
NY
MA
PA
NJ
VA
KS
NC
DC
AL
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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.3M · 7 repeat orgs$341k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +82% since the first grant, against +27% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 21 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
2

Total granted

$2.3M
$220k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+82%
+27%

Still filing today

57%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $121k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentInternationalHealthHousing & ShelterEducationPublic BenefitOther
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

  • PH
    PROJECT HORSESHOE FARM
    4× · 2019–2024 · $755k · revenue +380% · 68% of their budget
  • RO
    Real Organic Project Inc
    4× · 2021–2024 · $50k · revenue +44%
  • HA
    HUMAN AGE REVERSAL PROJECT INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $2k · revenue +82%

Funded once

  • CM
    Carnegie Mellon Universitygraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $200k · revenue +27%
  • CS
    Charlottesville Social Services
    one grant, 2021 · $20k
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
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education
2
Council On Foreign Relations Inc

The council on foreign relations (cfr) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and…

International
3
Health Effects Institute

Health effects institute's mission is to conduct independent research to provide high-quality, impartial and relevant science on the health effects of air pollution. this is done by identifying the highest priority areas for health effect…

Health
4
Peter G Peterson Institute for International Economics

The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…

Social Science
5
American Law Institute

The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…

Crime & Legal
6
International Food Information Council

To effectively communicate science based information on food safety, nutrition, and health for the public good.

Arts & Culture
7
International Life Sciences Institute

Ilsi is a global, nonprofit federation dedicated to generating and advancing emerging science and groundbreaking research to ensure foods are safe, nutritious and sustainable, and that they improve planetary and human health and well-being…

Science & Tech
8
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…

Social Science
9
Council for Responsible Nutrition

To protect and advance a climate for our members to responsibly create and market science-based dietary supplements, functional food, and their ingredients, for better human health and nutrition.

—
10
Transportation Energy Institute

The fuels institute/transportation energy institute will deliver comprehensive and balanced research and analysis concerning fuels, vehicles, and related policy issues in order to create a market in which consumers can safely,…

Unclassified
11
Center for Science in the Public Interest

The center for science in the public interest is america's food and health watchdog. cspi envisions a healthy population with reduced impact and burden of preventable diseases and an equitable food system that makes healthy, sustainable…

Food & Nutrition
12
Public Responsibility in Medicine & Research Inc

Prim&r advances the highest ethical standards in the conduct of biomedical, behavioral and social science research. prim&r accomplishes this mission through education, membership services, professional certification, public policy…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Health Defense; the most unlike its peers is The Children's Initiative 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

19 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. 19 of the 31 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
6/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

American Nutrition Association: $1,473,173 · OtherAmerican Nutrition AssociationCarnegie Mellon University: $200,000 · OtherCarnegie Mellon University+18 more: $134,850 · Other+18 morePROJECT HORSESHOE FARM: $754,821 · Housing & ShelterPROJECT HORSESHOE FARMPEACHTREE COLLABORATIVE: $180,000 · HealthINFORMED CONSENT ACTION NETWORK: $7,000 · Health+1 more: $5,000 · HealthReal Organic Project Inc: $50,000 · EnvironmentCHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE: $8,000 · EnvironmentSHELBURNE FARMS: $2,000 · EnvironmentAMERICAN FRIENDS OF GEORGIA INC: $20,000 · InternationalTHE CHILDREN'S INITIATIVE INC: $10,000 · InternationalAMERICAN BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE: $5,000 · EducationYOUNG AMERICANS FOR LIBERTY INC: $2,000 · Youth Development
Other$1,808,023Housing & Shelter$754,821Health$192,000Environment$60,000International$30,000Education$5,000Youth Development$2,000

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 budgetPROJECT HORSESHOE FARM: $754,821 over 4y, 68% of budgetCarnegie Mellon University: $200,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPEACHTREE COLLABORATIVE: $180,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetReal Organic Project Inc: $50,000 over 4y, 1.5% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF GEORGIA INC: $20,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetNATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER: $15,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S INITIATIVE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetTUESDAY EVENING CONCERT SERIES INC: $8,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetCHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetINFORMED CONSENT ACTION NETWORK: $7,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFOCUSED ULTRASOUND FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHELBURNE FARMS: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYOUNG AMERICANS FOR LIBERTY INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHUMAN AGE REVERSAL PROJECT INC: $2,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetTAX FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE LIVESTOCK CONSERVANCY INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBLUE RIDGE AREA FOOD BANK INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $100 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.

Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…Natl Christian Charit…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN7.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · 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 Hunter Lewis Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hunter Lewis Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Shelburne Farms: 3% of income from government
  • Real Organic Project Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
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 Hunter Lewis Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Hunter Lewis 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 31 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 Hunter Lewis’ 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