Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

League of Conservation Voters Education Fund

Lcvef works to turn environmental values into national, state and local priorities.

$55M
Granted FY2024still arriving
42
Grants FY2024still arriving
31
States reached
$43M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
0189% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.

Civil Rights$152MEnvironment$34MEducation$3.8MHuman Services$688kYouth Development$425kCommunity Improvement$163kPhilanthropy$110kSocial Science$10kPublic Benefit$10kOther$24M
02FY2024 · 42 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $168k
  • $50k–250k22 grants · $2.8M
  • $250k+12 grants · $52M
$137,800
Median grant
31
States reached
$37M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS$43,000,000
VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT$3,000,000
NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS FOUNDATION$2,863,481
RURAL UTAH PROJECT EDUCATION FUND$440,500
CONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND$435,000
MAINE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE$346,000
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL$342,800
MARYLAND LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND$327,800
SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION$300,000
GEORGIA CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND$281,000
THE ALASKA CENTER EDUCATION FUND$281,000
MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND$262,800
NEW JERSEY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC$244,000
CONSERVATION VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA$244,000
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL EDUCATION FUND$208,800
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $688k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 7% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE PEACE CENTER INC: $10k → 6%MINORITY MILLENNIALS INC: $10k → 7%PEEDEE INDIAN TRIBE OF SOUTH CAROLINA: $10k → 30%RURAL UTAH PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $51k → 8%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $20k → 21%RURAL UTAH PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $49k → 8%CENTRO DE APOYO FAMILIAR: $10k → 11%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $10k → 21%RURAL UTAH PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $11k → 8%RURAL UTAH PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $441k → 8%STEWARDSHIP UTAH FOUNDATION: $67k → 8%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Which US states your grants reach

AK
ME
VT
NH
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
CA
UT
CO
NE
VA
MD
NM
NC
SC
DC
AL
GA
TX
FL

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$212M · 46 repeat orgs$2.5M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +98% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.

46 repeat relationships — 36 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

46
42

Total granted

$212M
$2.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+98%
+23%

Still filing today

93%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $56k 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
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementCivil RightsHuman ServicesEducationYouth DevelopmentOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • LO
    LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $149M · revenue +388% · 30% of their budget
  • VR
    VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT
    8× · 2017–2024 · $20M · revenue +643%
  • NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS FOUNDATION
    7× · 2018–2024 · $7.7M · revenue +189% · 27% of their budget

Funded once

  • V
    VOTEORG
    one grant, 2018 · $1.0M · revenue -5%
  • V
    VOTEAMERICA
    one grant, 2020 · $800k · revenue +7%
  • NY
    NEW YORK LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERSgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $65k · revenue +63%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
California Environmental Voters

To increase public awareness of elected officials' performances on environmental issues, to influence decisions of public officials on environmental legislation and policy, and to engage in related social welfare activities to promote and…

Civil Rights
2
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
3
Center for Environmental Law & Policy

The Center for Environmental Law & Policy is a statewide organization whose mission is to protect, preserve and restore Washington's waters through education, advocacy, policy reform, and public interest litigation.

Environment
4
Conservation Voters New Mexico

To hold elected officials accountable for their environmental votes and to educate voters on conservation issues.

—
5
Montana Conservation Voters Inc

Montana conservation voters protects our clean air, clean water, public lands and democracy by supporting leaders who fight for these rights and by holding accountable leaders who do not.

—
6
Georgia League of Conservation Voters

GCVs mission is to advocate for public policies that advance a more just and sustainable future, campaign for candidates who will make climate and environmental justice a priority, and hold elected officials accountable for their actions…

—
7
California Environmental Justice Alliance

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…

Environment
8
Nevada Conservation League

The Nevada Conservation league protects Nevada's air, water, and health by promoting sensible conservation and environmental policies through education, advocacy and accountability.

—
9
Nw Energy Coalition

The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…

—
10
North Carolina League of Conservation Voters

Nclcv protects the health & quality of life for all north carolinians by: advocating for sound environmental policies that protect our communities, holding elected leaders accountable for their decisions, mobilizing voters to advocate for…

—
11
Climate Leadership Council Inc

To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.

Environment
12
Conservation Colorado

Our work secures policies and elevates leaders that advance climate action and environmental justice. we help them do it, and hold them to it. we work for a colorado where every community can breathe clean air, drink clean water, protect…

Civil Rights

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Colorado Education Fund and the most unlike its peers is Neighbors for Environmental Justice. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyImmigrant Worker SupportLgbtq+ Community SupportDomestic Violence ServicesWomen & Girls Leadership De…Affordable Housing Developm…United Way AffiliatesCommunity Food PantriesHealth Access Advocacy and …Community FoundationsEnvironmental Conservation …Policy Research and Advocacy
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 24 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number20%11%<5yr14%11%5–10yr18%23%10–20yr18%37%20–35yr16%14%35–55yr15%3%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value20%0%<5yr14%1%5–10yr18%11%10–20yr18%10%20–35yr16%78%35–55yr15%0%55yr+

The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 11% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
2%2/94
the rest of the field
12%
1,600/12,907

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

86 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 86 of the 94 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

21
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
38
Early backer (in before they grew)
84/86
Grantees still filing
61/86
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC — $148,950,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC+6 more — $2,909,800 · Civil RightsNORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS FOUNDATION — $7,675,027 · EnvironmentNORTH CAROLINA LE…Virginia League of Conservation Voters Education Fund — $4,108,309 · EnvironmentVirginia League o…MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $2,011,297 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN LEAGUE O…CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE — $1,853,355 · EnvironmentCITIZENS FOR PENN…GEORGIA CONSERVATION VOTERS ED FUND — $1,659,720 · EnvironmentSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION — $1,500,000 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND — $1,312,136 · EnvironmentNEW JERSEY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $1,198,843 · Environment+32 more — $12,806,410 · Environment+32 moreVOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT — $20,350,000 · OtherVOTER REGIST…Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania — $1,355,691 · OtherConservation…NEW JERSEY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC — $824,300 · Other+22 more — $1,266,541 · OtherFLORIDA CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND INC — $3,059,638 · EducationCT LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $412,800 · EducationConservation AL Foundation Inc — $298,700 · Education+2 more — $35,000 · EducationSTEWARDSHIP UTAH FOUNDATION — $618,300 · Human ServicesWe the People of Detroit — $30,000 · Human Services+4 more — $40,000 · Human ServicesHIP HOP CAUCUS EDUCATION FUND — $425,000 · Youth DevelopmentHillcrest Residents Association Inc — $40,000 · Community ImprovementTHE REGENSIS INSTITUTE — $35,000 · Community ImprovementRainbow Research Inc — $20,000 · Community ImprovementCULTIVANDO — $10,000 · Community ImprovementALTERNATIVES FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT INC — $10,000 · Community ImprovementSUSTAINING WAY — $10,000 · Community ImprovementCENTER FOR COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP — $10,000 · Community ImprovementNEW ALPHA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — $10,000 · Community ImprovementGROUNDWORK OHIO RIVER VALLEY INC — $10,000 · Community ImprovementJUNCTION COALITION — $7,500 · Community Improvement
Civil Rights$151,859,800Environment$34,125,097Other$23,796,532Education$3,806,138Human Services$688,300Youth Development$425,000Community Improvement$162,500

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC — $148,950,000 over 8y, 30% of budgetVOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT — $20,350,000 over 8y, 16% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS FOUNDATION — $7,675,027 over 7y, 27% of budgetVirginia League of Conservation Voters Education Fund — $4,108,309 over 8y, 83% of budgetFLORIDA CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND INC — $3,059,638 over 7y, 87% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $2,011,297 over 7y, 36% of budgetCITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE — $1,853,355 over 6y, 37% of budgetGEORGIA CONSERVATION VOTERS ED FUND — $1,659,720 over 7y, 91% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION — $1,500,000 over 5y, 2.3% of budgetConservation Voters of Pennsylvania — $1,355,691 over 7y, 28% of budgetCONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND — $1,312,136 over 7y, 26% of budgetNEW JERSEY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $1,198,843 over 7y, 66% of budgetNevada Conservation League Ed Fund — $1,124,585 over 6y, 64% of budgetMAINE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE — $1,005,500 over 7y, 29% of budgetWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC — $977,800 over 6y, 25% of budgetMARYLAND LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND INC — $915,555 over 7y, 22% of budgetTHE ALASKA CENTER EDUCATION FUND — $908,500 over 8y, 8.9% of budgetTHE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL — $879,600 over 7y, 9.0% of budgetVOTEAMERICA — $800,000 over 1y, 7.4% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS OF SC EDUC FUND — $793,000 over 8y, 21% of budgetILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL EDUCATION — $724,300 over 6y, 12% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC — $707,800 over 6y, 12% of budgetCONSERVATION NEBRASKA — $687,770 over 7y, 37% of budgetSTEWARDSHIP UTAH FOUNDATION — $618,300 over 4y, 19% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS FOR IDAHO EDUCATION FUND INC — $607,800 over 6y, 30% of budgetCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $549,000 over 6y, 12% of budgetMONTANA CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $539,600 over 8y, 22% of budgetNEW YORK LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $503,500 over 6y, 8.6% of budgetTHE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $470,500 over 7y, 16% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO EDUCATION FUND — $466,500 over 7y, 18% of budgetWASHINGTON CONSERVATION ACTION EDUCATION FUND — $442,800 over 5y, 4.6% of budgetCONSERVATION MINNESOTA — $432,800 over 7y, 6.1% of budgetHIP HOP CAUCUS EDUCATION FUND — $425,000 over 4y, 31% of budgetCT LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $412,800 over 7y, 37% of budgetVERMONT NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INC — $380,300 over 7y, 4.3% of budgetFEDERATION OF STATE CONSERVATION VOTER LEAGUES DBA NJ LEAGUE OF CONS VOTERS — $308,141 over 2y, 20% of budgetThe Partnership Project Inc — $300,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetConservation AL Foundation Inc — $298,700 over 6y, 93% of budgetINDIANA CONSERVATION FUND INC — $242,000 over 2y, 99% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS FOR IDAHO INC — $237,000 over 3y, 62% of budgetAmalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc — $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEW YORK LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS — $65,400 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetGreenLatinos — $52,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND — $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHillcrest Residents Association Inc — $40,000 over 1y, 43% of budgetTHE REGENSIS INSTITUTE — $35,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetWe the People of Detroit — $30,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetMARYLAND LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC — $30,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Virginia League of Conservation Voters Education Fund ↗
  • Who funds FLORIDA CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE ↗
  • Who funds GEORGIA CONSERVATION VOTERS ED FUND ↗
  • Who funds SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds NEW JERSEY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds Nevada Conservation League Ed Fund ↗
  • Who funds MAINE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds VOTEORG ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC ↗
  • Who funds MARYLAND LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds THE ALASKA CENTER EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds VOTEAMERICA ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION VOTERS OF SC EDUC FUND ↗
  • Who funds ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION NEBRASKA ↗
  • Who funds STEWARDSHIP UTAH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION VOTERS FOR IDAHO EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds MONTANA CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds NEW YORK LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON CONSERVATION ACTION EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION MINNESOTA ↗
  • Who funds HIP HOP CAUCUS EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds CT LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds VERMONT NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds FEDERATION OF STATE CONSERVATION VOTER LEAGUES DBA NJ LEAGUE OF CONS VOTERS ↗
  • Who funds The Partnership Project Inc ↗
  • Who funds Conservation AL Foundation Inc ↗

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

League of Conservatio…United States Energy …The Energy FoundationPatagoniaorgNatural Resources Def…Environmental Defense…New Venture FundWestern Conservation …National Wildlife Fed…Resources Legacy FundThe Partnership Proje…Rockefeller Family Fu…
League of Conservation Voters IncDC82.5× affinity38 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: League of Conservation Voters Inc · United States Energy Foundation · The Energy Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · New Venture Fund · Western Conservation Foundation · National Wildlife Federation · Resources Legacy Fund · The Partnership Project Inc · Rockefeller Family Fund Inc

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization League of Conservation Voters Education Fund funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 120%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 30%
  • Southeast Community Development Corporation Inc — 35% of income from government
  • Vermont Natural Resources Council Inc — 30% of income from government
  • Rethink Energy Florida Inc — 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
12get no government money at all
14report 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

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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 94 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines