Skip to content
National Arbor Day Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

National Arbor Day Foundation

The purpose of the corporation shall be to engage in educational and charitable activities including offically promoting the annual observance of arbor day, inspiring people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees, stimulating a world-wide program of tree and horticultural planting and care, advancing nature education and environmental…

$12M
Granted FY2025still arriving
181
Grants FY2025still arriving
45
States reached
$1.7M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Environment$29MFood & Nutrition$245kRecreation & Sports$189kHousing & Shelter$123kCommunity Improvement$61kPublic Benefit$39k
02FY2025 · 181 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 181 grants below total $11,559,047, the rows itemized in this filing. The $12,196,738 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $637,691 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k14 grants · $97k
  • $10k–50k101 grants · $2.7M
  • $50k–250k63 grants · $6.5M
  • $250k+3 grants · $2.3M
$37,500
Median grant
45
States reached
$136M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ARBOR DAY IMPACT FUND$1,709,668
CITY PARKS FOUNDATION$327,300
CITY OF CAPE CORAL$267,540
TEXAS TREES FOUNDATION$218,752
TREES ATLANTA$199,662
CITY OF SOUTH SIOUX CITY$198,043
SUSTAINING OUR URBAN LANSCAPE$197,878
CITY OF OLATHE KS$195,935
THE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION$193,182
FRUIT TREE PLANTING FOUNDATION$182,962
TROUT UNLIMITED$181,050
ASHEVILLE GREENWORKS$178,075
CITY OF GREENSBORO NC$175,244
CASEY TREES$163,550
CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS IA$149,534
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 (FY18–25, $262k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 73% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SUN VALLEY INSTITUTE OF RESILIENCE INC: $19k → 7%KYCC: $41k → 14%SERVE ETHIOPIANS WASHINGTON: $51k → 9%IDEAS FOR US: $122k → 13%KYCC: $30k → 14%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

AK
ME
VT
NH
WA
ID
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
VA
MD
DE
AZ
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
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.
04

Where the work is directed

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

About 7% of National Arbor Day Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 9% of the giving stays in NE; by stated purpose, 3%.

National Arbor Day Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
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.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$22M · 110 repeat orgs$7.8M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +43% since the first grant, against +0% for those funded once.

110 repeat relationships: 94 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 76 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

110
92

Total granted

$22M
$2.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+0%

Still filing today

84%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 51% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.5M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentRecreation & SportsCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesFood & NutritionArts & CultureOther
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

  • TA
    TREES ATLANTA INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $944k · revenue +234%
  • TT
    TEXAS TREES FOUNDATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $761k · revenue +97%
  • TF
    Trees For Houston
    8× · 2018–2025 · $717k · revenue +181%

Funded once

  • PF
    PARKS FOUNDATION OF MIAMI-DADEINC
    one grant, 2019 · $87k · revenue -60%
  • CO
    CITY OF EASTON
    one grant, 2019 · $65k
  • PL
    PARA LA NATURALEZA INC
    one grant, 2024 · $64k · revenue 0%
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
Green Cities Accord

Green Cities Accord is a nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering climate resilient communities through investments in tree canopy infrastructure to improve environmental health, climate resilience, and equity in communities. We focus…

Environment
2
Sidewalk Trees & Gardens

Mobilizing community-led projects to plant trees in high need areas and transform abandoned land into vibrant green space.

Food & Nutrition
3
American Forests

Protection and expansion of threatened urban and wildland forest ecosystems. See Part III

Environment
4
Trees Columbus Inc

Trees Columbus was formed to plant, preserve and protect the city of Columbus, Georgia's environment, especially trees, urban forests and natural surroundings. Trees Columbus is also charged with serving as an advocate for our city's…

Community Improvement
5
Nashville Tree Conservation Corps

Protect, preserve, and plant urban tree canopy.

Environment
6
The Greenwich Tree Conservancy Inc

The greenwich tree conservancy is open to all interested citizens, governed by a board and advised by an advisory board. it was created to preserve and enhance the tree and forest resources of greenwich, ct to benefit the community, its…

Environment
7
Releaf Cville

Releaf cville is rooted in a simple truth: trees save lives-so we save trees. we protect the health of charlottesville by expanding and maintaining the tree canopy, focusing on neighborhoods impacted by rising heat as the climate changes.…

Community Improvement
8
Soundforest Inc

SoundForest is a pro-Earth charity whose purpose is to plant trees and better our environment.

Environment
9
Ctrees

To track carbon in every tree on the planet and to deliver science-based geospatial data for enabling natural climate solutions at all sacles.

Environment
10
Trees for the Future Inc

Our mission is to improve the livelihoods of impoverished farmers by revitalizing degraded lands.

Environment
11
Canopy

Canopy collaborates with communities to grow and sustain equitable urban forests for all

Environment
12
Tree Davis

The mission of Tree Davis is to improve the health and resilience of our communities by enhancing and expanding Climate-Ready Trees and Landscapes through direct action, community engagement, and advocacy.

Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Trees Atlanta Inc; the most unlike its peers is Para La Naturaleza Inc. 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

162 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. 162 of the 280 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.

21
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
59
Early backer (in before they grew)
160/162
Grantees still filing
97/162
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ARBOR DAY IMPACT FUND: $1,709,668 · EnvironmentARBOR DAY IMPACT FUNDTREES ATLANTA INC: $944,439 · EnvironmentTREES ATLANTA INCTHE GREENING OF DETROIT: $591,119 · EnvironmentCasey Trees: $573,300 · EnvironmentFOREST RELEAF OF MISSOURI: $566,996 · Environment+75 more: $10,199,286 · Environment+75 moreTEXAS TREES FOUNDATION: $760,637 · OtherTEXAS TREES FOUNDATIONTrees For Houston: $717,269 · OtherTrees For HoustonOPENLANDS: $549,500 · OtherMIAMI DADE COMMUNITY ACTION & HUMAN SERVICES: $477,260 · OtherURBAN BIRD & NATURE ALLIANCE: $383,954 · OtherCITY OF CAPE CORAL: $358,815 · Other+91 more: $7,408,397 · Other+91 moreCITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $688,386 · Recreation & SportsFRIENDS OF GRAND RAPIDS PARKS: $189,250 · Recreation & SportsCENTRAL FLORIDA FAIR INC: $93,500 · Recreation & SportsPARKS FOUNDATION OF MIAMI-DADEINC: $86,750 · Recreation & SportsKNOX INC: $53,600 · Recreation & Sports+3 more: $99,842 · Recreation & SportsTREESLOUISVILLE INC: $235,375 · Community ImprovementKEEP DURHAM BEAUTIFUL INC: $172,610 · Community ImprovementDELAWARE RIVER CITY CORPORATION: $128,826 · Community ImprovementDUCKTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $46,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY PARTNERS: $30,000 · Community ImprovementGROUNDWORK RVA INC: $27,850 · Community ImprovementGROUNDWORK BRIDGEPORT INC: $26,970 · Community ImprovementFruit Tree Planting Foundation: $330,737 · Arts & CultureTHE AMERICAS FOR THE ARTS: $171,250 · Arts & CulturePROVIDENCE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANTING PROGRAM: $57,500 · Arts & CultureFOOD 4 FARMERS INC: $245,358 · Food & NutritionUnity Gardens: $75,000 · Food & NutritionFOOD WELL ALLIANCE: $43,500 · Food & NutritionLouisville Grows Incorporated: $35,000 · Food & NutritionFLORESTA USA INCORPORATED: $389,660 · International
Environment$14,584,808Other$10,655,832Recreation & Sports$1,211,328Community Improvement$667,631Arts & Culture$559,487Food & Nutrition$398,858International$389,660

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetARBOR DAY IMPACT FUND: $1,709,668 over 1y, 100% of budgetTREES ATLANTA INC: $944,439 over 8y, 4.4% of budgetTEXAS TREES FOUNDATION: $760,637 over 6y, 2.8% of budgetTrees For Houston: $717,269 over 8y, 4.1% of budgetCITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $688,386 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetTHE GREENING OF DETROIT: $591,119 over 6y, 4.9% of budgetCasey Trees: $573,300 over 4y, 1.5% of budgetFOREST RELEAF OF MISSOURI: $566,996 over 6y, 13% of budgetOPENLANDS: $549,500 over 5y, 1.9% of budgetTreesCharlotte: $462,303 over 6y, 9.7% of budgetFLORESTA USA INCORPORATED: $389,660 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetTHE PENNSYLVANIA HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY: $387,478 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetFriends of Trees: $378,250 over 6y, 3.1% of budgetBALTIMORE TREE TRUST INC: $374,750 over 4y, 5.1% of budgetNEW JERSEY TREE FOUNDATION: $368,084 over 9y, 8.0% of budgetTree Trust: $353,566 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetTREES GREENVILLE: $351,291 over 5y, 16% of budgetTHE PARK PEOPLE: $350,278 over 6y, 8.9% of budgetFruit Tree Planting Foundation: $330,737 over 5y, 12% of budgetBRIDGING THE GAP INC: $321,250 over 4y, 5.8% of budgetWESTERN RESERVE LAND CONSERVANCY: $306,625 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetTREE SAN DIEGO: $294,240 over 4y, 17% of budgetCommunity Greening Corp: $292,178 over 5y, 26% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE URBAN FOREST: $277,121 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetGREENSCAPE OF JACKSONVILLE INC: $272,660 over 5y, 25% of budgetTrees Matter: $270,000 over 6y, 16% of budgetKEEP TAMPA BAY BEAUTIFUL: $268,013 over 5y, 11% of budgetArizona Sustainability Alliance: $264,535 over 5y, 5.0% of budgetTHE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $245,682 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetFOOD 4 FARMERS INC: $245,358 over 4y, 15% of budgetCUMBERLAND RIVER COMPACT INC: $238,200 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetTREESLOUISVILLE INC: $235,375 over 4y, 5.3% of budgetNorth East Trees Inc: $234,375 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetNASHVILLE TREE FOUNDATION: $233,513 over 5y, 52% of budgetTREEPEOPLE INC: $220,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetTROUT UNLIMITED INC: $219,550 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNOLA Tree Project: $213,688 over 3y, 45% of budgetFAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY: $203,695 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetSustaining Our Urban Landscape SOUL: $197,878 over 1y, 19% of budgetKEEP INDIANAPOLIS BEAUTIFUL INC: $192,875 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetAsheville GreenWorks: $190,075 over 2y, 12% of budgetFRIENDS OF GRAND RAPIDS PARKS: $189,250 over 5y, 7.5% of budgetTHE BRONX IS BLOOMING: $187,500 over 2y, 14% of budgetAlliance for Cape Fear Trees: $184,866 over 4y, 48% of budgetKEEP DURHAM BEAUTIFUL INC: $172,610 over 6y, 29% of budgetTHE AMERICAS FOR THE ARTS: $171,250 over 2y, 13% of budgetTreeFolks Inc: $170,500 over 3y, 5.2% of budgetUNITED CHARITABLE: $167,573 over 5y, 0.3% 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 ARBOR DAY IMPACT FUND ↗
  • Who funds TREES ATLANTA INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS TREES FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Trees For Houston ↗
  • Who funds CITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds THE GREENING OF DETROIT ↗
  • Who funds Casey Trees ↗
  • Who funds FOREST RELEAF OF MISSOURI ↗
  • Who funds OPENLANDS ↗
  • Who funds TreesCharlotte ↗
  • Who funds FLORESTA USA INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds THE PENNSYLVANIA HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds Friends of Trees ↗
  • Who funds BALTIMORE TREE TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds NEW JERSEY TREE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Tree Trust ↗
  • Who funds TREES GREENVILLE ↗
  • Who funds THE PARK PEOPLE ↗
  • Who funds Fruit Tree Planting Foundation ↗
  • Who funds BRIDGING THE GAP INC ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN RESERVE LAND CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds TREE SAN DIEGO ↗
  • Who funds Community Greening Corp ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE URBAN FOREST ↗
  • Who funds GREENSCAPE OF JACKSONVILLE INC ↗
  • Who funds Trees Matter ↗
  • Who funds KEEP TAMPA BAY BEAUTIFUL ↗
  • Who funds Arizona Sustainability Alliance ↗
  • Who funds THE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FOOD 4 FARMERS INC ↗
  • Who funds CUMBERLAND RIVER COMPACT INC ↗
  • Who funds TREESLOUISVILLE INC ↗
  • Who funds North East Trees Inc ↗
  • Who funds NASHVILLE TREE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TREEPEOPLE INC ↗
  • Who funds TROUT UNLIMITED 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.

American ForestsKeep America Beautifu…National Fish and Wil…Urban Forestry Organi…National Recreation a…The Nature ConservancyNational League of Ci…PatagoniaorgUS Green Building Cou…Clif Family FoundationCalifornia ReLeafPalmettopride the Gov…
American ForestsDC66.8× affinity32 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Forests · Keep America Beautiful Inc · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Urban Forestry Organization · National Recreation and Park Association · The Nature Conservancy · National League of Cities Institute Inc · Patagoniaorg · US Green Building Council Inc · Clif Family Foundation · California ReLeaf · Palmettopride the Governor's Council on Beautification & Litter

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 National Arbor Day Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Arbor Day Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 100%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • Baltimore Tree Trust Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Friends of Trees: 100% of income from government
  • Up With Trees Inc: 100% of income from government
  • New Jersey Tree Foundation: 100% of income from government
  • Groundwork Bridgeport Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council: 49% of income from government
  • Tree Eastie Inc: 38% of income from government
  • Ideas for Us Inc: 35% of income from government
  • Community Greening Corp: 5% of income from government
  • Delaware Center for Horticulture Inc: 4% of income from government
  • Riverfront Recapture Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Knox Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Greenscape of Jacksonville Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Speak for the Trees Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Central Florida Fair Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
10get no government money at all
39report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
5rely 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 280 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on National Arbor Day’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