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

· Public charity

National Wildlife Federation

Unite all americans to ensure wildlife thrives in a rapidly changing world.

$20M
Granted FY2024still arriving
150
Grants FY2024still arriving
46
States reached
$9.8M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

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

Environment$48MAnimals$8.6MFood & Nutrition$25k
02FY2024 · 150 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 150 grants below total $19,578,081 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $20,097,880 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $519,799 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k23 grants · $160k
  • $10k–50k85 grants · $1.9M
  • $50k–250k36 grants · $3.6M
  • $250k+6 grants · $14M
$25,000
Median grant
46
States reached
$179M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY$9,814,250
BAD RIVER BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS$1,200,000
TOWN OF OXFORD$1,176,921
ETCHART SHEEP RANCH LLC$800,000
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY$623,692
WIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE$312,454
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN$200,000
CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE$196,858
THE CENTER FOR AQUATIC SCIENCES$178,869
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND$174,533
SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS FUND$169,959
CENTRO DE APOYO FAMILIAR$150,407
MINNESOTA CONSERVATION FEDERATION$129,416
WILDLIFE INFORMATION CENTER DBA LEHIGH GAP NATURE CENTER$121,509
LOUISIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION$117,249
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 (FY18–24, $299k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 97% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ONE LOVE GLOBAL INC: $10k → 16%EARLY CHILDHOOD COUNCIL LEADERSHIP ALLIANCE: $8k → 7%LITTLE GIANTS LEARNING CENTER: $6k → 10%FAMILIES ANCHORED IN TOTAL HARMONY INC: $8k → 15%YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO: $7k → 14%YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN ATLANTA INC: $10k → 13%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $20k → 21%CENTRO DE APOYO FAMILIAR: $150k → 11%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $15k → 21%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $10k → 21%HEALTHY COMMUNITY RESOURCES & ADVOCACY: $25k → 23%COBBS CREEK COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER: $15k → 22%COBBS CREEK COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER: $10k → 22%COBBS CREEK COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER: $5k → 22%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
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
OK
LA
MS
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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$51M · 156 repeat orgs$5.6M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +57% since the first grant, against +34% for the ones you funded once.

156 repeat relationships — 88 still active in FY2024, 68 since wound down; 59 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

156
98

Total granted

$51M
$1.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+57%
+34%

Still filing today

83%
69%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.1M 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
EnvironmentAnimalsEducationCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesArts & CultureOther

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

  • NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC
    7× · 2018–2024 · $3.2M · revenue +48%
  • New Jersey Audubon Society
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +33%
  • CF
    CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • TA
    THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA
    one grant, 2023 · $210k · revenue +18%
  • TP
    THE PENNSYLVANIA HORTICULTURAL SOCIETYgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $75k · revenue +60%
  • TP
    The Partnership Project Action Fundgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $55k · revenue +258%

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
Idaho Conservation League Inc

Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.

—
2
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
3
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
4
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
5
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
6
Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…

Environment
7
Washington Wild

Washington wild protects and restores wild lands and waters in washington state through advocacy, education and civic engagement.

Animals
8
National Association of Clean Water Agencies

Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.

—
9
Defenders of Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

Animals
10
Wildcoast

The mission of wildcoast is to conserve coastal and marine ecosystems and address climate change through natural solutions. our staff is dedicated to conserving threatened and endangered coastlines and wildlife in california and mexico.…

Environment
11
Natural Resources Foundation of

To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.

—
12
Conservation Minnesota

Conservation minnesota's mission is to turn our shared conservation values into state priorities and provide you with the information you need to make decisions for your family, community and future.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Research and Policy Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is Design Workshop Foundation (Aka Dw Foundation). 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 backsteadyFaith-Based Liberal Arts Co…School District FoundationsCommunity College Foundatio…Women & Girls Leadership De…Military Veterans SupportImmigrant Worker SupportIndependent K-12 SchoolsYmca Youth DevelopmentPolicy Research and AdvocacyCommunity FoundationsEnvironmental Conservation …
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 33 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%4%<5yr14%7%5–10yr19%14%10–20yr16%28%20–35yr13%24%35–55yr16%23%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%2%<5yr14%5%5–10yr19%6%10–20yr16%18%20–35yr13%40%35–55yr16%29%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
1%4/314
the rest of the field
13%
240,392/1,819,251

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

246 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. 246 of the 314 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.

25
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
84
Early backer (in before they grew)
240/246
Grantees still filing
166/246
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY — $19,330,951 · OtherMOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITYUniversity of Wisconsin Madison — $1,595,317 · OtherUniversity of Wisconsin MadisonBAD RIVER BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS — $1,558,622 · OtherTOWN OF OXFORD — $1,176,921 · Other+74 more — $5,751,387 · Other+74 moreNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC — $3,150,630 · EnvironmentNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INCNew Jersey Audubon Society — $1,314,986 · EnvironmentNew Jersey Audubon SocietyCITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE — $1,146,995 · EnvironmentCITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURENATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ACTION FUND — $1,043,000 · EnvironmentNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ACTION …WILDLIFE INFORMATION CENTER INC — $922,792 · EnvironmentVIRGINIA CONSERVATION NETWORK — $697,060 · EnvironmentWEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION INC — $636,721 · Environment+69 more — $8,741,402 · Environment+69 moreCENTER FOR AQUATIC SCIENCES — $697,041 · AnimalsCENTER FOR …MISSISSIPPI WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $636,136 · AnimalsMISSISSIPPI…ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $500,121 · AnimalsARIZONA WIL…LOUISIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $488,531 · AnimalsLOUISIANA W…WYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $371,898 · AnimalsWYOMING WIL…ARKANSAS WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC — $321,353 · AnimalsARKANSAS WI…MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $321,056 · AnimalsMONTANA WIL…Florida Wildlife Federation — $297,612 · AnimalsGEORGIA WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $294,636 · AnimalsIdaho Wildlife Federation — $251,743 · AnimalsNevada Wildlife Federation — $239,661 · AnimalsCOLORADO WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC — $232,131 · Animals+13 more — $1,173,798 · Animals+13 moreUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STEVENS POINT FOUNDATION INC — $778,931 · EducationCommunity College Partners Program — $130,000 · Education+3 more — $62,918 · EducationEMPOWER DC — $87,778 · Community ImprovementAmerican Sustainable Business Institute Inc — $85,000 · Community ImprovementJUNCTION COALITION — $69,000 · Community ImprovementDELAWARE RIVER CITY CORPORATION — $51,700 · Community ImprovementJASTECH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC — $50,000 · Community ImprovementBIRDSEED COLLECTIVE — $39,000 · Community ImprovementNEW ALPHA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — $30,000 · Community ImprovementPOLICYLINK — $29,000 · Community ImprovementVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC — $28,000 · Community ImprovementINSTITUTE FOR CONSERVATION LEADERSHIP — $21,000 · Community ImprovementTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC — $302,420 · InternationalSOUTH BALTIMORE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST INC — $112,467 · InternationalWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE — $75,000 · InternationalHERITAGE CONSERVANCY INC — $191,031 · Arts & CultureTHE FUND FOR THE WATER WORKS — $145,176 · Arts & CultureIndependence Seaport Museum — $97,372 · Arts & Culture
Other$29,413,198Environment$17,653,586Animals$5,825,717Education$971,849Community Improvement$490,478International$489,887Arts & Culture$433,579

Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC — $3,150,630 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetNew Jersey Audubon Society — $1,314,986 over 8y, 8.0% of budgetCITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE — $1,146,995 over 8y, 9.2% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ACTION FUND — $1,043,000 over 3y, 37% of budgetWILDLIFE INFORMATION CENTER INC — $922,792 over 7y, 80% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STEVENS POINT FOUNDATION INC — $778,931 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetVIRGINIA CONSERVATION NETWORK — $697,060 over 8y, 19% of budgetCENTER FOR AQUATIC SCIENCES — $697,041 over 7y, 11% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION INC — $636,721 over 8y, 15% of budgetMISSISSIPPI WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $636,136 over 8y, 30% of budgetDELAWARE NATURE SOCIETY INC — $560,565 over 8y, 2.8% of budgetNatural Resources Council of Maine Inc — $519,563 over 8y, 2.8% of budgetARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $500,121 over 8y, 43% of budgetLOUISIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $488,531 over 8y, 37% of budgetSanta Monica Mountains Fund — $430,979 over 3y, 14% of budgetCLIMATE ADVISERS TRUST — $402,315 over 3y, 5.8% of budgetTHE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL — $394,068 over 8y, 3.7% of budgetSOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER — $392,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetWYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $371,898 over 8y, 23% of budgetARKANSAS WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC — $321,353 over 6y, 61% of budgetMONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $321,056 over 8y, 8.9% of budgetWIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE — $312,454 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC — $302,420 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetPRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK — $297,651 over 8y, 6.4% of budgetFlorida Wildlife Federation — $297,612 over 8y, 5.0% of budgetGEORGIA WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $294,636 over 5y, 10% of budgetTHE JOHN BARTRAM ASSOCIATION — $278,037 over 7y, 2.1% of budgetBERKS NATURE — $271,323 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetIdaho Wildlife Federation — $251,743 over 7y, 26% of budgetNevada Wildlife Federation — $239,661 over 5y, 27% of budgetTENNESSEE WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC — $238,942 over 6y, 2.1% of budgetCOLORADO WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC — $232,131 over 7y, 37% of budgetWISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC — $230,907 over 4y, 23% of budgetSoutheast Alaska Conservation Council Inc-SEACC — $223,113 over 6y, 4.3% of budgetMINNESOTA WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $213,624 over 5y, 57% of budgetCLEAN WATER FUND — $212,250 over 5y, 1.6% of budgetTHE WATERSHED INSTITUTE INC — $212,084 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetGreat Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc — $212,000 over 3y, 11% of budgetTHE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA — $210,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCONSERVATION COUNCIL FOR HAWAII — $201,182 over 5y, 36% of budgetASSOCIATION OF NORTHWEST STEELHEADERS — $200,795 over 6y, 28% of budgetTOOKANY TACONY FRANKFORD WATERSHED PARTN ERSHIP — $197,501 over 7y, 7.1% of budgetHERITAGE CONSERVANCY INC — $191,031 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetNEW MEXICO WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $188,589 over 6y, 7.4% of budgetIndiana Wildlife Federation — $186,551 over 8y, 29% of budgetMILWAUKEE WATER COMMONS INC — $183,462 over 5y, 8.6% of budgetMARYLAND LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND INC — $178,515 over 8y, 7.4% of budgetThe Schuylkill Center For Environmental Education — $176,822 over 5y, 1.6% 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 NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds New Jersey Audubon Society ↗
  • Who funds CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds WILDLIFE INFORMATION CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STEVENS POINT FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds VIRGINIA CONSERVATION NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR AQUATIC SCIENCES ↗
  • Who funds WEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION INC ↗
  • Who funds MISSISSIPPI WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds DELAWARE NATURE SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds Natural Resources Council of Maine Inc ↗
  • Who funds ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds LOUISIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds Santa Monica Mountains Fund ↗
  • Who funds CLIMATE ADVISERS TRUST ↗
  • Who funds THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER ↗
  • Who funds WYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds ARKANSAS WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC ↗
  • Who funds MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds WIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE ↗
  • Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
  • Who funds PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds Florida Wildlife Federation ↗
  • Who funds GEORGIA WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds THE JOHN BARTRAM ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds BERKS NATURE ↗
  • Who funds Idaho Wildlife Federation ↗
  • Who funds Nevada Wildlife Federation ↗
  • Who funds TENNESSEE WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC ↗
  • Who funds COLORADO WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Southeast Alaska Conservation Council Inc-SEACC ↗

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.

The Partnership Proje…United States Energy …Environmental Defense…PatagoniaorgNational Fish and Wil…Resources Legacy FundThe Nature ConservancyThe Energy FoundationThe William Penn Foun…National Audubon Soci…Windward FundThe Pew Charitable Tr…
The Partnership Project IncDC58.1× affinity28 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Partnership Project Inc · United States Energy Foundation · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · Patagoniaorg · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Resources Legacy Fund · The Nature Conservancy · The Energy Foundation · The William Penn Foundation · National Audubon Society Inc · Windward Fund · The Pew Charitable Trusts

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 National Wildlife Federation 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 100%6%23%51%90%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Wildlife Management Institute Inc — 100% of income from government
  • Wild Salmon Center — 49% of income from government
  • Delaware Nature Society Inc — 13% of income from government
  • Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
  • South Baltimore Community Land Trust Inc — 11% of income from government
  • Delaware Center for Horticulture Inc — 4% of income from government
  • The Watershed Institute Inc — 3% of income from government
  • Association of Northwest Steelheaders — 1% of income from government
  • Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc — 1% of income from government
  • National Aquarium Inc — 1% of income from government
  • New Jersey Audubon Society — 1% of income from government
  • American Littoral Society — 1% of income from government
  • Anthropocene Alliance — 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)
1rely 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 314 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 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