Skip to content
MaryLou and Douglas B Lamb Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

MaryLou and Douglas B Lamb Foundation

Its FY2019 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$48k
Granted FY2019
2
Grants FY2019
2
States reached
$24k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2019.

Education$50kReligion$7kHuman Services$3kHealth$2kHousing & Shelter$2kEnvironment$650Youth Development$500Other$0
02FY2019 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$23,972
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Cleveland Lutheran High School$23,972
Red Cloud Indian School$23,972
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 (FY17–18, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Running Strong for American Indian Youth: $1k → 6%Running Strong for American Indian Youth: $500 → 6%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.

52%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$34k · 6 repeat orgs$31k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2019, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
9

Total granted

$34k
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-30%
+98%

Still filing today

50%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
Human ServicesReligionFood & NutritionYouth DevelopmentEducationOther
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

  • RC
    RED CLOUD INDIAN SCHOOL
    2× · 2017–2019 · $25k
  • SS
    ST STEPHENS INDIAN MISSION FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $2k
  • SO
    Sisters of the Incarnate Word
    2× · 2017–2018 · $2k

Funded once

  • EW
    ETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue +98%
  • CF
    CAL FARLEY'S BOYS RANCH
    one grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue +12%
  • SA
    St Augustine Church
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
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
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
2
Institute for Journalism & Natural Resources

The organization pursues higher standards of news coverage of natural resources and the environment -- standards of accuracy, fairness, balance, depth and context.

Arts & Culture
3
Fresh Energy

Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.

Environment
4
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
5
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
6
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy

Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.

Food & Nutrition
7
West Creek Conservancy

Our mission is to enrich the lives of all people in northeast ohio by conserving natural habitats, restoring the ecological value of our region's lands and waters, and expanding opportunities to connect people from all cultures to…

Environment
8
The Ohio Environmental Council

To protect the environment and health of all ohio communities through legal and policy advocacy, decision-maker accountability, and civic engagement.

Environment
9
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
10
Nia Tero Foundation

Nia tero works alongside indigenous peoples to secure their guardianship of vital ecosystems. indigenous peoples are guardians of earth.(see schedule o)

Environment
11
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc

We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…

Environment
12
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cal Farley's Boys Ranch; the most unlike its peers is American Farmland Trust. 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 17 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
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RED CLOUD INDIAN SCHOOL: $24,972 · OtherRED CLOUD INDIAN SCHOOLCleveland Lutheran High School: $23,972 · OtherCleveland Lutheran High SchoolST STEPHENS INDIAN MISSION FOUNDATION: $2,000 · OtherSisters of the Incarnate Word: $2,000 · OtherPARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA BUCKEYE CHAPTER INC: $2,000 · Other+6 more: $4,650 · Other+6 moreAMERICAN INDIAN YOUTH RUNNING STRONG INC: $1,500 · Human ServicesCAL FARLEY'S BOYS RANCH: $1,000 · Human ServicesETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK INC: $1,000 · ReligionTHE TURN: $1,000 · EducationAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $500 · Food & NutritionCHEYENNE RIVER YOUTH PROJECT INC: $500 · Youth Development
Other$59,594Human Services$2,500Religion$1,000Education$1,000Food & Nutrition$500Youth Development$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 budgetPARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA BUCKEYE CHAPTER INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetAMERICAN INDIAN YOUTH RUNNING STRONG INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE HOUSING OF OHIO: $1,500 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetCAL FARLEY'S BOYS RANCH: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TURN: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHEYENNE RIVER YOUTH PROJECT INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $150 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.9× affinity4 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 MaryLou and Douglas B Lamb Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from MaryLou and Douglas B Lamb 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 →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    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.

    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 17 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on MaryLou and Douglas B Lamb’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