How much does Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation give?

Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation reported 23 grants totaling $97,500 in its FY2024 IRS filing. It funded between 19 and 34 organizations a year over FY2017 to FY2023.

What does Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation fund?

By grant dollars over FY2017 to FY2025, its largest causes are Philanthropy (23%), International (14%), Environment (12%).

Who are Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation's largest grantees?

By total granted over FY2017 to FY2025: Pridepads Africa Inc ($63k), St Jude Children's Research Hospital Inc ($40k), The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ($30k).

Does Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation fund new organizations?

In FY2023, 17% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.

Does Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation accept unsolicited applications?

Its most recent filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and does not take unsolicited requests. Check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

Which funders back the same organizations as Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation?

Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include Community Foundation Boulder County, Colorado Gives Foundation, The Denver Foundation.

Where is Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation based?

Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation is based in CO.

Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation

Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$98k

Granted FY2024still arriving

Grants FY2024still arriving

States reached

$15k

Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

97% of Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to East Bay Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2024, the last year Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 17 organizations, $98k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

’17

’18

’19

’20

’21

’22

’23

’24

’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds

0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Philanthropy$197kInternational$116kEnvironment$106kAnimals$79kHealth$69kEducation$63kPublic Safety & Disaster$44kYouth Development$42kOther$0

02FY2024 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k22 grants · $83k
$10k–50k1 grant · $15k

$5,000

Median grant

States reached

$2.0M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS ALLIANCE	$15,000
Individual grant recipient	$5,000
ST JUDE CHILDRENS RESEARCH HOSPITA	$5,000
PETA	$5,000
ACLU	$5,000
VOTEORG	$5,000
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS	$5,000
THE COFFEE TRUST	$5,000
PLASTIC OCEANS FOUNDATION	$5,000
THE WILD ANIMAL SANCTUARY	$5,000
THE WILD FOUNDATION	$5,000
ASPCA	$5,000
NATURE CONSERVANCY	$5,000
PROTECT OUR WINTERS	$5,000
PILOTS TO THE RESCUE	$3,000

02The need

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 (FY17–23, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 86% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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

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.

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 25% of Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 30% of the giving stays in CO; by stated purpose, 23%.

Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundationlessmore of its giving

Placed by recipient address · 7.4% directed abroad (not shown)

How this is measured

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Its grantees

repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.

$541k · 37 repeat orgs$115k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +55% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

37 repeat relationships: 16 still active in FY2024, 21 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call). Read against FY2024, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$541k

$87k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+55%

+26%

Still filing today

78%

80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

AnimalsEnvironmentHuman ServicesInternationalHealthEducationOther

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

ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC
8× · 2017–2024 · $40k · revenue +145%
TA
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
8× · 2017–2024 · $30k · revenue +80%
GLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC
2× · 2017–2018 · $25k · revenue +34%

Funded once

AR
AMERICAN RED CROSS DISASTER
one grant, 2018 · $25k
IG
Individual grant recipient
one grant, 2017 · $10k
PO
PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT INC
one grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue +13%

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.

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

Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International

Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment

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

Wildaid Inc

Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.

Animals

Friends of the Earth

Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…

Environment

Ocean Conservancy

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

Environment

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

Waterorg

Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.

International

Global Animal Partnership

Animals

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

Animal Outlook Inc

Animal outlook is a national animal protection organization working to end the abuse of farmed animals using a variety of strategies, including investigations, legal advocacy, corporate and food system reform, and vegan outreach.

Animals

How this is measured

The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is International Wilderness Leadership Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Big Red F Family Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the grantee network

56 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. 56 of the 70 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

56/56

Grantees still filing

37/56

Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Other$301,500Philanthropy$197,000International$126,500Animals$78,500Education$52,000Health$50,500Environment$47,000

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

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.

Community Foundation Boulder CountyCO29.6× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation Boulder County · Colorado Gives Foundation · The Denver Foundation · The Longmont Community Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Impactassetsinc · Boulder Valley Rotary Community Foundation · Collins Foundation · John R Woods Foundation · AEC Trust · Anschutz Family Foundation · Amg Charitable Gift 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 Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jennifer Woods Tierney Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

1get no government money at all

15report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%

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.

Play a game based on Jennifer Woods Tierney’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