Skip to content

· Public charity

Project Apis M Inc

The organization's mission is to fund and direct research and efforts to improve honey bee health and vitality.

$1.4M
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
11
States reached
$127k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Science & Tech$3.7MEducation$1.3MFood & Nutrition$733kAnimals$308kEnvironment$166kHealth$109kPhilanthropy$108kCommunity Improvement$75kOther$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $746,662, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,386,629 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $639,967 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

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $151k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $595k
$50,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$2.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$127,204
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY$125,650
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY$100,000
USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER$68,583
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS$66,008
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY$57,804
INDIANA UNIVERSITY$50,000
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY$41,576
AUBURN UNIVERSITY$34,205
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA RESEARCH$24,645
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA$21,861
PETTIS AND ASSOCIATES$16,200
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY$12,926
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 89% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $50k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $43k → 14%USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER: $279k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $48k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $56k → 16%HAWAII ISLAND HONEY CO LLC: $32k → 15%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $42k → 16%AUBURN UNIVERSITY: $115k → 15%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $128k → 18%UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA RESEARCH: $38k → 27%KEYSTONE POLICY CENTER: $47k → 9%USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER: $206k → 11%PURDUE UNIVERSITY: $37k → 19%OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 15%MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY: $52k → 24%PROJECT APIS M 20: $108k → 14%USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER: $195k → 6%BEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP: $250k → 11%MARYLAND NONPROFITS: $75k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $50k → 11%USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER: $96k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $46k → 11%AUBURN UNIVERSITY: $34k → 15%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $126k → 18%UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA RESEARCH: $38k → 27%KEYSTONE POLICY CENTER: $43k → 9%USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER: $140k → 11%OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 15%MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY: $42k → 24%PROJECT APIS M 20: $75k → 14%USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER: $97k → 6%BEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP: $250k → 11%USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER: $69k → 10%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $62k → 18%USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER: $93k → 11%PROJECT APIS M 20: $75k → 14%BEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP: $175k → 11%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $54k → 18%BEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP: $150k → 11%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $47k → 18%BEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP: $75k → 11%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $40k → 18%BEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP: $75k → 11%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $38k → 18%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $67k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $50k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $50k → 11%RAMSEY RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $37k → 11%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

WA
MT
ND
MN
IL
MI
NY
OR
SD
IN
OH
NJ
CA
UT
CO
NE
MD
NC
HI
MS
AL
GA
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $184k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

South Ameria$162k · 88% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: HONEY BEE RESEARCH

North America (Canada and Mexico)$22k · 12% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: HONEY BEE RESEARCH

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.9M · 29 repeat orgs$765k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +38% since the first grant, against +14% for those funded once.

29 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 17 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

29
22

Total granted

$5.9M
$665k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+14%

Still filing today

24%
18%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementAnimalsOther
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

  • Oregon State University Foundation
    7× · 2019–2025 · $474k · revenue +38%
  • PA
    Project Apis M 20 Inc
    4× · 2021–2024 · $292k · revenue +160%
  • BARNARD COLLEGE
    5× · 2018–2024 · $114k · revenue +16%

Funded once

  • MA
    MARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONSgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $75k · revenue +188%
  • OS
    OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
  • MS
    MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2020 · $50k
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
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
2
Vanderbilt University

See Disclosure Above.

Education
3
Reed Institute

The mission of Reed College is to provide education in the liberal arts and sciences.

Education
4
The Penn State Research Foundation

The Penn State Research Foundations mission is to foster and advance scientific research which includes creating, purchasing, holding and licensing of rights for inventions, designs and intellectual property of The Pennsylvania State…

Education
5
The Trustees of Princeton University

Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…

Education
6
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Rensselaer educates the leaders of tomorrow for technologically based careers. We celebrate discovery and the responsible application of technology to create knowledge and global prosperity.

Education
7
Trustees of Boston University

Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…

—
8
Manhattan University

Manhattan university is an independent catholic instituion of higher learning that embraces qualified men and women of all faiths, cultures, and traditions. the mission of manhattan university is to provide a contemporary, person-centered…

Education
9
Roger Williams University

At Roger Williams University, students are prepared to be thinkers and doers ready to solve challenging problems with innovative solutions. RWU offers robust offerings of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs across eight…

Education
10
Trustees of Dartmouth College

Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.

Education
11
President and Fellows of Harvard College

Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.

Education
12
William Marsh Rice University

As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rowan University Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ramsey Research Foundation Inc. 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

11 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. 11 of the 52 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP INC: $975,264 · OtherBEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP INCUSDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER: $634,266 · OtherUSDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA): $540,593 · OtherAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA)REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $434,376 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $267,924 · OtherAUBURN UNIVERSITY: $204,367 · OtherIndiana University School of Medicine: $202,298 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK: $184,348 · Other+35 more: $1,926,768 · Other+35 moreOregon State University Foundation: $474,116 · EducationOregon State …BARNARD COLLEGE: $114,311 · EducationBARNARD COLLE…University of Georgia Research Foundation Inc: $99,645 · EducationUniversity of…Montana State University Billings Foundation & Alumni: $50,000 · EducationMontana State…+2 more: $33,621 · EducationProject Apis M 20 Inc: $291,543 · AnimalsKEYSTONE CENTER: $107,062 · EnvironmentMARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS: $75,000 · Community Improvement
Other$5,370,204Education$771,693Animals$291,543Environment$107,062Community Improvement$75,000

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 budgetBEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP INC: $975,264 over 6y, 24% of budgetOregon State University Foundation: $474,116 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetProject Apis M 20 Inc: $291,543 over 4y, 21% of budgetBARNARD COLLEGE: $114,311 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetKEYSTONE CENTER: $107,062 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetUniversity of Georgia Research Foundation Inc: $99,645 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS: $75,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetMontana State University Billings Foundation & Alumni: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetRamsey Research Foundation Inc: $49,835 over 2y, 48% of budgetROWAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $19,750 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCornell University: $13,871 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.

  • Who funds BEE INFORMED PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
  • Who funds Oregon State University Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Project Apis M 20 Inc ↗
  • Who funds BARNARD COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds KEYSTONE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds University of Georgia Research Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds MARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ↗
  • Who funds Montana State University Billings Foundation & Alumni ↗
  • Who funds Ramsey Research Foundation 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.

Cornell UniversityNY13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Cornell University · University of Pittsburgh · The Nature Conservancy · Johns Hopkins University · National Fish and Wildlife 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 Project Apis M Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Project Apis M Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Oregon State University Foundation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
1report 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
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Project Apis M Inc?

Find your warmest path to Project Apis M Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 52 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 Project Apis M’s filings →

More from the funding graph