Skip to content
Regenerative Agriculture Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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 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, FY2020 to 2024.

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $914,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,676,068 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,762,068 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 · 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
REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE$200,000
NORTH AMERICAN TRADITIONAL INDIGENOUS FOOD SYSTEMS$200,000
FIBERSHED$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

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 (FY20–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 47% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its 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%CATATUMBO COOPERATIVE FARMS: $32k → 11%CARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE: $50k → 8%POINT BLUE CONSERVATION SCIENCE: $200k → 9%SISTAS IN THE VILLAGE: $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
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

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

64%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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 & NutritionInternationalHealthHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • PR
    POINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY
    3× · 2020–2022 · $750k · revenue +139%
  • F
    FIBERSHED
    3× · 2020–2022 · $600k · revenue +78%
  • FN
    FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
    3× · 2020–2022 · $400k · revenue +255%

Funded once

  • RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $360k · revenue +229%
  • RI
    REGENERATION INTERNATIONALgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $200k · revenue +195% · 77% of their budget
  • PS
    PASA SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
    one grant, 2022 · $200k
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
Sustainable Growers
—
2
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
3
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.

—
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
Rainforest Alliance Holding 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.

Environment
6
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
7
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…

—
8
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
9
Groundswell International Inc

Groundswell International strenghtens communities to build healthy farming and food systems from the ground up.

International
10
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
11
Multinational Exchange for Sustainable a Mesa andor Mesa Inc

MESA connects and cultivates sustainable farmers and food systems leaders around the world.

Education
12
Ecosystem Services Market Consortium

Esmc is a non-profit that works to compensate farmers and ranchers who improve the environment through their agricultural practices. our market program reduces greenhouse gases, improves water quality, and increases other ecosystem…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Appropriate Technology; 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.
04the grantee network

31 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. 31 of the 105 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
30/31
Grantees still filing
24/31
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 SYSTEMSPASA SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE: $200,000 · OtherFIBERSHED: $200,000 · OtherNORTH AMERICAN TRADITIONAL INDIGENOUS FOOD SYSTEMS: $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 ImprovementRosebud Economic Development Corp: $32,000 · Community ImprovementBLACK FARMER FUND INC: $32,000 · Community ImprovementRural Coalition: $10,000 · Community ImprovementINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC: $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 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 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 budgetNATIONAL CENTER FOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetThe University Foundation California State University Chico: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 budgetLOS JARDINES INC: $32,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetMississippi Association of Cooperatives Inc: $32,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetPEOPLE AND CARNIVORES INC: $25,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetBIODIVERSITY FOR A LIVABLE CLIMATE: $25,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetSequoia Riverlands Trust: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetECDYSIS FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetEcological Farming Association: $13,655 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetRural Coalition: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMULTIPLIER: $7,500 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 A Greener World ↗
  • Who funds POINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
  • Who funds FIBERSHED ↗
  • Who funds FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATION ↗
  • Who funds LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds REGENERATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds RAW MILK INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds CARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds QUIVIRA COALITION INC ↗
  • Who funds SHARING OUR ROOTS ↗
  • Who funds HOLISTIC MANANGEMENT INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds WINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL CENTER FOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds The University Foundation California State University Chico ↗
  • Who funds Rosebud Economic Development Corp ↗
  • Who funds BLACK FARMER FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds KOKUA KALIHI VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds LOS JARDINES INC ↗
  • Who funds SUSTAINABLE GANGSTAS INC ↗
  • Who funds Red Willow Center ↗

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.

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%23%51%90%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
    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
    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 105 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Regenerative Agriculture’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