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

· Public charity

Regenerative Agriculture Foundation

The mission of the REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE FOUNDATION is to foster the economic, policy, and knowledge conditions that support land stewardship, provide climate solutions, protect freshwater and oceans, advance a just economy, support thriving rural communities, and sustain diverse human and ecological life.

$3.7M
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
—
States reached
$200k
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 FY2020–2024.

Food & Nutrition$6.5MAnimals$750kEnvironment$343kCivil Rights$32kCommunity Improvement$20k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 9 grants below total $914,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $3,676,068 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $2,762,068 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 $10k2 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $72k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $825k
$50,000
Median grant
—
States reached
$8.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FIBERSHED$200,000
REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE$200,000
NORTH AMERICAN TRADITIONAL INDIGENOUS FOOD SYSTEMS$200,000
NATIVE AMERICAN FIBER PROGRAM$175,000
MICHIGAN INTEGRATED FOOD AND FARMING SYSTEMS$50,000
Individual grant recipient$36,000
TEWA WOMEN UNITED$36,000
KANSAS BLACK FARMERS ASSOCIATION INC$9,500
INDIAN COUNTRY AGRICULTURE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INC$7,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 47% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%LOS JARDINES INSTITUTE: $32k → 10%MAIN STREET PROJECT DBA SHARING OUR ROOTS: $50k → 11%REGENERATION INTERNATIONAL: $200k → 11%FIBERSHED: $200k → 8%UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION CSU CHICO: $50k → 18%RAW MILK INSTITUTE: $50k → 19%KOKUA KALIHI VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY SERVICES: $32k → 9%BLACK FARMER FUND: $32k → 17%GANGSTAS TO GROWERS: $32k → 16%ROSEBUD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $32k → 21%QUIVIRA COALITION: $57k → 12%LA COESCHA CSA: $32k → 14%RED WILLOW CENTER: $32k → 18%SHIPROCK TRADITIONAL FARMERS COOP: $32k → 22%WINROCK SOLUTIONS: $75k → 17%A GREENER WORLD: $300k → 10%BLACK OREGON LAND TRUST: $32k → 12%REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE: $200k → 17%RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL: $360k → 9%AMERICAN INDIAN MOTHERS INC: $32k → 15%FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE: $300k → 12%SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY: $32k → 11%MISSISSIPPI ASSOCIATION OF COOPERATIVES: $32k → 23%BLACK DIRT FARM COLLECTIVE: $32k → 14%MAIN STREET PROJECT DBA SHARING OUR ROOTS: $35k → 11%LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: $94k → 11%FIBERSHED: $200k → 8%CENTER FOR REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RESILIENT SYSTEMS: $50k → 18%RAW MILK INSTITUTE: $50k → 19%WALLACE CENTER AT WINROCK INTERNATIONAL: $75k → 17%A GREENER WORLD: $300k → 10%REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE: $200k → 17%FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE: $50k → 12%LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: $80k → 11%FIBERSHED: $200k → 8%POINT BLUE CONSERVATION SCIENCE: $300k → 9%CENTER FOR REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RESILIENT SYSTEMS: $50k → 18%RAW MILK INSTITUTE: $50k → 19%A GREENER WORLD: $212k → 10%FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE: $50k → 12%LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: $75k → 11%CARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE: $50k → 8%POINT BLUE CONSERVATION SCIENCE: $250k → 9%SISTAS IN THE VILLAGE: $32k → 11%CARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE: $50k → 8%POINT BLUE CONSERVATION SCIENCE: $200k → 9%CATATUMBO COOPERATIVE FARMS: $32k → 11%CARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE: $50k → 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

VT
WA
MT
MN
NY
MA
OR
SD
CA
CO
DE
NM
AR
TN
NC
DC
HI
MS
TX

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.

64%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$4.9M · 16 repeat orgs$2.8M to everyone else

16 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
84

Total granted

$4.9M
$2.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
+63%

Still filing today

63%
24%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $480k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionInternationalHousing & ShelterHealthOther

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

  • AG
    A Greener World
    3× · 2020–2022 · $812k · revenue +9%
  • PR
    POINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY
    3× · 2020–2022 · $750k · revenue +139%
  • F
    FIBERSHED
    3× · 2020–2022 · $600k · revenue +78%

Funded once

  • RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $360k · revenue +69%
  • RI
    REGENERATION INTERNATIONALgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $200k · revenue +195% · 77% of their budget
  • PS
    PASA SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
    one grant, 2022 · $200k

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
Regenerative Organic Alliance

The roa intends to create a path for agricultural producers of food and fiber to introduce and scale the use of regenerative organic practices in their operation in an effort to increase soil health and carbon through soil. also the roa…

Food & Nutrition
2
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
3
Regenerative Farms Inc

To scale up forest protection and transition to regenerative agriculture by incubating adoption of the Regeneration Hub model. RF fulfills its Mission to catalyze planetary regeneration, empower women & indigenous communities in order to…

Food & Nutrition
4
Sustainable Growers
—
5
Development in Gardening

Development in Gardening is improving the nutrition and livelihoods of some of the world's most uniquely marginalized people by teaching them to plant regenerative gardens that grow health, wealth, and a sense of belonging.

Community Improvement
6
The Land Institute

When people, land, and community are as one, all three members prosper; when they relate not as members but as competing interests, all three are exploited. by consulting nature as the source and measure of that membership, the land…

—
7
Equitable Food Initiative

EFIs mission is to transform the produce industry and the lives of farmworkers by facilitating collaboration among workers, agricultural employers, retail buyers and consumer advocates.

Human Services
8
New Roots Institute

New Roots Institute is a nonprofit empowering the next generation with knowledge and training to end factory farming.

Food & Nutrition
9
Organic Farmers Association

The mission of the Organic Farmers Association is to provide a strong and unified national voice for domestic certified organic producers so that organic agriculture will become the basis of a viable United States food and agricultural…

Food & Nutrition
10
Oregon Agricultural Trust

Oregon agricultural trust partners with farmers and ranchers to protect agricultural lands for the benefit of oregons economy, communities, and landscapes.

Environment
11
Nature and Culture International

Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.

Environment
12
Rainforest Alliance Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Appropriate Technology and the most unlike its peers is Holistic Manangement International. 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 backsteadyPolicy Research and AdvocacyPregnancy Support ServicesCommunity FoundationsLocal Food System Organizat…Community College Foundatio…Environmental 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 28 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%0%<5yr14%11%5–10yr19%25%10–20yr16%29%20–35yr13%29%35–55yr16%7%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%20%5–10yr19%27%10–20yr16%8%20–35yr13%28%35–55yr16%18%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
3%1/34
the rest of the field
13%
240,395/1,819,531

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

31 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. 31 of the 105 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
30/31
Grantees still filing
25/31
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE — $600,000 · OtherREGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE ALLIANCEFIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE — $400,000 · OtherFIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTENATIVE AMERICAN FIBER PROGRAM — $375,000 · OtherNATIVE AMERICAN FIBER PROGRAMMICHIGAN INTEGRATED FOOD AND FARMING SYSTEMS — $250,000 · OtherMICHIGAN INTEGRATED FOOD AND FARMING SYSTEMSFIBERSHED — $200,000 · OtherNORTH AMERICAN TRADITIONAL INDIGENOUS FOOD SYSTEMS — $200,000 · OtherPASA SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE — $200,000 · OtherWALLACE CENTER AT WINROCK INTERNATIONAL — $150,000 · Other+75 more — $1,473,791 · Other+75 moreFIBERSHED — $600,250 · EnvironmentFIBERSHEDLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT — $249,000 · EnvironmentLAND STEWARDSHIP…QUIVIRA COALITION INC — $111,725 · EnvironmentQUIVIRA COALITIO…NATIONAL CENTER FOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY — $50,000 · Environment+4 more — $82,500 · Environment+4 moreA Greener World — $812,000 · Food & NutritionA Greener Worl…RAW MILK INSTITUTE — $150,000 · Food & NutritionRAW MILK INSTI…+2 more — $45,655 · Food & NutritionPOINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY — $750,000 · AnimalsPOINT REYES…RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATION — $360,000 · InternationalRURAL ADV…REGENERATION INTERNATIONAL — $200,000 · InternationalREGENERAT…WINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT — $75,000 · InternationalWINROCK I…SHARING OUR ROOTS — $85,000 · Community ImprovementBLACK FARMER FUND INC — $32,000 · Community ImprovementRosebud Economic Development Corp — $32,000 · Community ImprovementINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC — $10,000 · Community ImprovementRural Coalition — $10,000 · Community ImprovementCARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE — $150,000 · Science & Tech
Other$3,848,791Environment$1,093,475Food & Nutrition$1,007,655Animals$750,000International$635,000Community Improvement$169,000Science & Tech$150,000

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 budgetA Greener World — $812,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetPOINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY — $750,000 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetFIBERSHED — $600,250 over 3y, 13% of budgetFIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE — $400,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetRURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATION — $360,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT — $249,000 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetREGENERATION INTERNATIONAL — $200,000 over 1y, 77% of budgetRAW MILK INSTITUTE — $150,000 over 3y, 70% of budgetCARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE — $150,000 over 3y, 7.2% of budgetQUIVIRA COALITION INC — $111,725 over 3y, 3.8% of budgetSHARING OUR ROOTS — $85,000 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetHOLISTIC MANANGEMENT INTERNATIONAL — $75,000 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetWINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT — $75,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe University Foundation California State University Chico — $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNATIONAL CENTER FOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY — $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBLACK FARMER FUND INC — $32,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetKOKUA KALIHI VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY SERVICES — $32,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMississippi Association of Cooperatives Inc — $32,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetLOS JARDINES INC — $32,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetSequoia Riverlands Trust — $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetPEOPLE AND CARNIVORES INC — $25,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetBIODIVERSITY FOR A LIVABLE CLIMATE — $25,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetECDYSIS FOUNDATION — $15,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetEcological Farming Association — $13,655 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRural Coalition — $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMULTIPLIER — $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

Sustainable Markets F…PatagoniaorgRsf Social Finance IncThe Schmidt Family Fo…Clif Family FoundationImpactassetsincCommunity Foundation …Tomkat Ranch Educatio…Farm Aid IncWK Kellogg FoundationTides FoundationGlobetrotter Foundati…
Sustainable Markets FoundationNY30.2× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sustainable Markets Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Rsf Social Finance Inc · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Community Foundation for San Benito County · Tomkat Ranch Educational Foundation · Farm Aid Inc · WK Kellogg Foundation · Tides Foundation · Globetrotter Foundation

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 Regenerative Agriculture Foundation 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 · 10%6%23%51%90%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    7report 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 105 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