Skip to content

· Private foundation

Robert E Mathews Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$22k
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$7k
Largest
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Recreation & Sports$31kArts & Culture$21kEnvironment$18kFood & Nutrition$12kAnimals$10kHealth$9kPhilanthropy$8kHuman Services$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$433k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Chagrin Valley Hunter Jumper Classic$6,500
Old Bills Fun Run$4,000
Individual grant recipient$1,500
Fieldstone Farm$1,000
Ideastream Public Media$1,000
Greater Cleveland Food Bank$1,000
In Step With Horses$1,000
Cleveland Animal Protective League$1,000
Cleveland Museum of Natural History$1,000
Conservation Land Foundation$1,000
Earthjutice$500
Native Memory Project$500
Gates Mills Land Conservancy$500
Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club$500
OPHA$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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–25, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%IN STEP WITH HORSES: $2k → 6%IN STEP WITH HORSES: $2k → 6%In Step With Horses: $1k → 6%In Step With Horses: $500 → 6%IN STEP WITH HORSES: $750 → 6%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

ID
MT
MN
IL
WY
SD
OH
CA
CO
VA
KS
TN
DC
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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$72k · 20 repeat orgs$36k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +68% since the first grant, against +32% for those funded once.

20 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

20
23

Total granted

$72k
$29k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+68%
+32%

Still filing today

60%
39%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsArts & CultureFood & NutritionHuman ServicesEducationOther
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

  • CM
    CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
    5× · 2020–2025 · $8k · revenue +76%
  • NM
    NATIVE MEMORY PROJECT
    4× · 2022–2025 · $6k · revenue +206%
  • IS
    IN STEP WITH HORSESINC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $6k · revenue +168%

Funded once

  • CV
    CHAGRIN VALLEY PROFESSIONAL HORSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
  • OI
    OCCK INC
    one grant, 2023 · $3k · revenue +16%
  • HW
    Humane World for Animals Incgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $2k · revenue +32%
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
Wildlife Conservation Network Inc

Connect conservationists and supporters, deploy resources to the field, provide conservationists with tools and support they need to succeed.

Animals
2
Greater Yellowstone Coalition

Greater yellowstone coalition works with all people to protect the lands, waters, and wildlife of the greater yellowstone ecosystem, now and for future generations.

Environment
3
Wildearth Guardians

Wildearth guardians works to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the american west.

Unclassified
4
Rocky Mountain Wild

Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…

Environment
5
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
6
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
7
Washington Wild

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

Animals
8
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
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
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
11
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.

—
12
Wyoming Wildlife Advocates

To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Western Watersheds Projects Inc; the most unlike its peers is Feeding America. 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

24 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. 24 of the 49 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/24
Grantees still filing
19/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Chagrin Valley Hunter Jumper Classic: $12,500 · OtherChagrin Valley Hunter Jumper ClassicCHAGRIN HUNTER JUMPER CLASSIC: $7,000 · OtherCHAGRIN HUNTER JUMPER CLASSICCHAGRIN VALLEY PROFESSIONAL HORSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION: $5,000 · OtherCHAGRIN VALLEY PROFESSIONAL HORSEMEN'S ASSOCIATIONOld Bills Fun Run: $4,000 · OtherOld Bills Fun RunTHE SALVATON ARMY NORTHWAST OHIO DIVISION: $3,000 · OtherGlobal Impact: $3,000 · OtherWKHR RADIO INC: $3,000 · OtherOCCK INC: $3,000 · Other+23 more: $22,400 · Other+23 moreGates Mills Land Conservancy: $3,500 · EnvironmentGates Mills L…EARTHJUSTICE: $2,000 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICEConservation Lands Foundation: $2,000 · EnvironmentConservation …WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL: $2,000 · EnvironmentWYOMING OUTDO…WIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE: $2,000 · EnvironmentWIND RIVER TR…WILDERNESS WATCH INC: $1,000 · EnvironmentWILDERNESS WA…WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECTS INC: $1,000 · EnvironmentWESTERN WATER…HONOR THE EARTH: $1,000 · EnvironmentHONOR THE EAR…+1 more: $200 · EnvironmentCLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY: $8,000 · Arts & CultureCLEVELAND MUS…NATIVE MEMORY PROJECT: $6,000 · Arts & CultureNATIVE MEMORY…GREATER CLEVELAND FOOD BANK INC: $7,000 · Food & NutritionFeeding America: $1,500 · Food & NutritionCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE: $8,425 · PhilanthropyIN STEP WITH HORSESINC: $5,750 · Human ServicesTHE CLEVELAND ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE: $3,000 · AnimalsHumane World for Animals Inc: $2,000 · AnimalsPOLAR BEARS INTERNATIONAL: $500 · Animals
Other$62,900Environment$14,700Arts & Culture$14,000Food & Nutrition$8,500Philanthropy$8,425Human Services$5,750Animals$5,500

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 budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE: $8,425 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY: $8,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER CLEVELAND FOOD BANK INC: $7,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetNATIVE MEMORY PROJECT: $6,000 over 4y, 10% of budgetIN STEP WITH HORSESINC: $5,750 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetGates Mills Land Conservancy: $3,500 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetGlobal Impact: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWKHR RADIO INC: $3,000 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetOCCK INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CLEVELAND ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE: $3,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetConservation Lands Foundation: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHumane World for Animals Inc: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE: $2,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFeeding America: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCANINE LIFELINE INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetWILDERNESS WATCH INC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECTS INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHONOR THE EARTH: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetIDEASTREAM: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPOLAR BEARS INTERNATIONAL: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNorthern Rockies Conservation Cooperative: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPark County Environmental Council: $200 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 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE ↗
  • Who funds CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY ↗
  • Who funds GREATER CLEVELAND FOOD BANK INC ↗
  • Who funds NATIVE MEMORY PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds IN STEP WITH HORSESINC ↗
  • Who funds Gates Mills Land Conservancy ↗
  • Who funds Global Impact ↗
  • Who funds WKHR RADIO INC ↗
  • Who funds OCCK INC ↗
  • Who funds THE CLEVELAND ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
  • Who funds Conservation Lands Foundation ↗
  • Who funds WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds Humane World for Animals Inc ↗
  • Who funds WIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE ↗
  • Who funds Feeding America ↗
  • Who funds CANINE LIFELINE INC ↗
  • Who funds WILDERNESS WATCH INC ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECTS INC ↗
  • Who funds HONOR THE EARTH ↗
  • Who funds IDEASTREAM ↗

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.

Marin Community FoundationCA14.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Marin Community Foundation · The New-Land Foundation Inc · Patagoniaorg · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Robert E Mathews Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Robert E Mathews Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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
    0get no government money at all
    5report 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 49 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-PF 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 Robert E Mathews Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph