Skip to content

· Private foundation

Hunter-White 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.

$210k
Granted FY2024still arriving
16
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

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

International$803kEnvironment$460kEmployment$85kHuman Services$65kHousing & Shelter$63kEducation$56kCrime & Legal$36kFood & Nutrition$3kOther$0
02FY2024 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k7 grants · $45k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $165k
$15,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$2.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS$30,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$25,000
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL$20,000
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH$20,000
OXFAM AMERICA$15,000
PARTNERS IN HEALTH$15,000
THE CARTER CENTER$15,000
ZAMBIA'S SCHOLARSHIP FUND$15,000
WOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT$10,000
TGTHR - ATTENTION HOMES$7,500
FAMILY TREE INC$7,500
THE LAND INSTITUTE$7,500
Individual grant recipient$7,500
PROJECT PAVE$5,000
TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND$5,000
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 (FY17–24, $68k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 22% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%FAMILY TREE INC: $8k → 7%FAMILY TREE INC: $8k → 7%FAMILY TREE INC: $8k → 7%FAMILY TREE INC: $8k → 7%FAMILY TREE INC: $8k → 7%ATTENTION HOMES: $5k → 12%FAMILY TREE INC: $5k → 7%ATTENTION HOMES: $5k → 12%FAMILY TREE INC: $5k → 7%FAMILY TREE INC: $5k → 7%ATTENTION HOMES: $3k → 12%ATTENTION HOMES: $3k → 12%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

NY
MA
CA
UT
CO
VA
KS
DC
GA
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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 19 repeat orgs$3k to everyone else

19 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
1

Total granted

$1.3M
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+98%
+175%

Still filing today

84%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
InternationalEnvironmentHuman ServicesHealthEmploymentCrime & LegalOther
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

  • MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $260k · revenue +98%
  • OXFAM-AMERICA INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $170k · revenue +8%
  • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $140k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • GI
    Groundswell International Incgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +175%
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
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
2
Namati Inc

Namati, inc. (namati) is dedicated to putting the law in people's hands. we strive to build a just world, in which every one of us can take part in the decisions and demand accountability from the institutions that affect our lives.…

Crime & Legal
3
Pathfinder International

Pathfinder expands access to sexual and reproductive health services, opening the door to opportunities for women and all individuals to thrive-economically, educationally, and civically. driven by our country-led leadership and local…

International
4
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

The mission of the global alliance for improved nutrition (gain) is to improve the consumption of healthier diets for all, especially the most vulnerable, by improving the availability, affordability, desirability, and sustainability of…

Food & Nutrition
5
Technoserve Inc

Technoserve's mission is to fight poverty by helping people build regenerative farms, businesses, and markets that increase incomes.

International
6
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
7
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
8
Actionaid Usa

Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…

Social Science
9
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…

International
10
Floresta Usa Incorporated

Plant with purpose, a christian nonprofit organization, reverses deforestation and poverty around the world by transforming the lives of the rural poor. we do this through: - watershed restoration & regenerative agriculture - savings…

International
11
Rainforest Alliance Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

—
12
Center for International Environmental Law Inc

To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Human Rights Watch Inc; the most unlike its peers is Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation. 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

18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 21 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
17/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $260,000 · InternationalMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INCOXFAM-AMERICA INC: $170,000 · InternationalOXFAM-AMERICA INCHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC: $145,000 · InternationalHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INCTHE CARTER CENTER INC: $90,000 · InternationalTHE CARTER CENTER INC+1 more: $2,500 · InternationalTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $235,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYThe Land Institute: $45,000 · OtherThe Land InstituteIndividual grant recipient: $36,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTGTHR - ATTENTION HOMES: $30,000 · OtherTGTHR - ATTENTION HOMESPROJECT PAVE INC: $30,000 · OtherPROJECT PAVE INCBOULDER SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS INC: $17,500 · Other+3 more: $28,500 · Other+3 moreNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $140,000 · EnvironmentNATURAL RESO…THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $40,000 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST FO…PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $100,000 · HealthWOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT: $85,000 · EmploymentFAMILY TREE INC: $52,500 · Human ServicesATTENTION INC: $15,000 · Human ServicesZAMBIAS SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $55,500 · Education
International$667,500Other$422,000Environment$180,000Health$100,000Employment$85,000Human Services$67,500Education$55,500

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 budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $260,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $235,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetOXFAM-AMERICA INC: $170,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC: $145,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $140,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $100,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CARTER CENTER INC: $90,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetWOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT: $85,000 over 8y, 1.4% of budgetZAMBIAS SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $55,500 over 5y, 2.8% of budgetFAMILY TREE INC: $52,500 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetThe Land Institute: $45,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $40,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT PAVE INC: $30,000 over 8y, 0.8% of budgetBOULDER SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS INC: $17,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetATTENTION INC: $15,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetJEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTER: $12,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCHILD ADVOCACY AND PARENTING SERVICE INC: $6,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetGroundswell International Inc: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
  • Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds THE CARTER CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds ZAMBIAS SCHOLARSHIP FUND ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY TREE INC ↗
  • Who funds The Land Institute ↗
  • Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT PAVE INC ↗
  • Who funds BOULDER SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS INC ↗
  • Who funds ATTENTION INC ↗
  • Who funds JEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CHILD ADVOCACY AND PARENTING SERVICE INC ↗
  • Who funds Groundswell International Inc ↗

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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO7.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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-White Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hunter-White 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation: 0% of income from government
  • Oxfam-America Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
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 Hunter-White Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Hunter-White 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 21 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-White’s filings →

More from the funding graph