Skip to content
Savanna Institute at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Savanna Institute

The SAVANNA INSTITUTE is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that works with farmers and scientists to lay the groundwork for widespread agroforestry adoption in the midwest us.

$133k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$53k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Environment$264kEmployment$25k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $64k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $53k
$15,821
Median grant
3
States reached
$20M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OZAUKEE WASHINGTON LAND TRUST$52,983
RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER$37,332
WI LAND AND WATER$15,821
CHIWARA PERMACULTURE LLC$11,000
LAND CONSERVANCY OF MCHENRY COUNTY$9,301
RIVER ALLIANCE OF WI$6,927
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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 71% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%THE FOOD GROUP MINNESOTA: $25k → 11%CHIWARA PERMACULTURE: $27k → 14%CHIWARA PERMACULTURE LLC: $38k → 16%OZAUKEE WASHINGTON LAND TRUST: $53k → 6%WI LAND AND WATER: $16k → 10%LAND CONSERVANCY OF MCHENRY COUNTY: $9k → 6%LIBERTY PRAIRIE FOUNDATION: $8k → 8%BLACK OAKS CENTER: $29k → 14%CHIWARA PERMACULTURE LLC: $11k → 14%RIVER ALLIANCE OF WI: $7k → 10%DELTA INSTITUTE: $9k → 14%DELTA INSTITUTE: $8k → 14%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.
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.

49%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$141k · 3 repeat orgs$147k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +48% since the first grant, against +36% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
3

Total granted

$141k
$62k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+48%
+36%

Still filing today

67%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 36% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $85k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentFood & NutritionCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • CP
    CHIWARA PERMACULTURE LLC
    3× · 2021–2024 · $76k
  • RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC
    2× · 2022–2024 · $48k · revenue 0%
  • TD
    THE DELTA INSTITUTE
    2× · 2021–2022 · $17k · revenue +48%

Funded once

  • BO
    BLACK OAKS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE RENEWABLE LIVINGgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $29k · revenue +49%
  • FG
    FOOD GROUP MINNESOTA INC THE
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue -27%
  • LP
    LIBERTY PRAIRIE NFPgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $8k · revenue +36%
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
Southeast Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.

Environment
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
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
4
Gathering Waters Inc

Gathering waters (wisconsin's alliance for land trusts) strengthens land trusts to protect wisconsin's special places and grow healthy, vibrant communities. the stronger the alliance between gathering waters' staff and board members, land…

Environment
5
Heartlands Conservancy

The mission of heartlands conservancy is to empower and colaborate with the people of southern illinois to advance and protect the health of our distinctive communities and nationally significant natural and cultural resources.

Environment
6
Six Rivers Land Conservancy Fka Six Rivers Regional Land Conservancy

To conserve, sustain, and connect natural areas, land, and waters that make the places we live special

Environment
7
Waukesha County Land Conservancy Inc

To protect environmentally senstive land in waukesha county wisconsin

Environment
8
Mississippi Valley Conservancy Inc

The mission of mississippi valley conservancy is to conserve native habitats and farmlands in the driftless area for the health and well-being of current and future generations.

Environment
9
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation Inc

The wisconsin wildlife federation has a dual mission to engage in conservation education and to advocate for sound conservation policy.

Environment
10
Landmark Conservancy Inc

Landmark conservancy is a nationally accredited, nonprofit conservation organization serving 20 counties across northwest wisconsin. their mission is to conserve wisconsin's natural legacy for everyone...forever.

Environment
11
Natural Resource Development Association Inc

The natural resource development association supports policies that lead to proper, necessary, and conscientious resource development and conservation. by engaging community leaders, laborers, manufacturers, and job creators in the…

Environment
12
Legacy Land Conservancy

Safeguard southern michigan's land and water to support diverse, resilient, and thriving communities - forever

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The River Alliance of Wisconsin Inc; the most unlike its peers is Liberty Prairie Nfp. 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

9 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. 9 of the 10 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
4/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RESTORING LANDS INC: $52,983 · EnvironmentRESTORING LANDS INCRIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC: $48,192 · EnvironmentRIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INCBLACK OAKS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE RENEWABLE LIVING: $29,015 · EnvironmentBLACK OAKS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE RENEWABLE LIVINGWISCONSIN LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $15,821 · EnvironmentWISCONSIN LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INCTHE RIVER ALLIANCE OF WISCONSIN INC: $6,927 · EnvironmentCHIWARA PERMACULTURE LLC: $76,010 · OtherCHIWARA PERMACULTURE LLCTHE LAND CONSERVANCY OF MCHENRY COUNTY: $9,301 · OtherTHE LAND CONSERVANCY OF MCHENRY COUN…LIBERTY PRAIRIE NFP: $8,382 · OtherLIBERTY PRAIRIE NFPFOOD GROUP MINNESOTA INC THE: $25,000 · Food & NutritionFOOD GROU…THE DELTA INSTITUTE: $17,074 · Community Improvement
Environment$152,938Other$93,693Food & Nutrition$25,000Community Improvement$17,074

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRESTORING LANDS INC: $52,983 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetRIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC: $48,192 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetBLACK OAKS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE RENEWABLE LIVING: $29,015 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetFOOD GROUP MINNESOTA INC THE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE DELTA INSTITUTE: $17,074 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetWISCONSIN LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $15,821 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetTHE LAND CONSERVANCY OF MCHENRY COUNTY: $9,301 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetLIBERTY PRAIRIE NFP: $8,382 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetTHE RIVER ALLIANCE OF WISCONSIN INC: $6,927 over 1y, 0.6% 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.

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.

National Fish and Wil…The Chicago Community…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC13.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Savanna Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Savanna Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 Savanna Institute?

    Find your warmest path to Savanna Institute 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 10 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 Savanna Institute’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