Skip to content

· Private foundation

Shadetree Partners Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$20k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$6k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Crime & Legal$35kEnvironment$34kArts & Culture$31kCommunity Improvement$28kPhilanthropy$14kAnimals$7kHealth$5k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$403k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COMMUNITY FOUND OF WASHINGTON CNTY$6,000
ELLIS MARSALLS CENTER FOR MUSIC$5,000
LAND TRUST FOR THE MS COASTAL PLAIN$5,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY OF MS$3,000
DELTA WIND BIRDS$1,000
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, $30k) land where the poverty rate runs at 23%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%ELLIS MARSALLS CENTER FOR MUSIC: $10k → 23%ELLIS MARSALIS CENTER FOR MUSIC: $10k → 23%ELLIS MARSALLS CENTER FOR MUSIC: $5k → 23%ELLIS MARSALLS CENTER FOR MUSIC: $5k → 23%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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$130k · 8 repeat orgs$9k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +8% since the first grant, against -24% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$130k
$9k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
-24%

Still filing today

63%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentHealthCrime & LegalHuman ServicesAnimalsOther
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

  • MC
    MISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE
    3× · 2017–2019 · $35k · revenue +8%
  • MISSISSIPPIS LOWER DELTA PARTNERSHIP
    8× · 2017–2024 · $9k · revenue +62%
  • DW
    DELTA WIND BIRDS
    3× · 2022–2025 · $7k · revenue +239%

Funded once

  • SV
    SONOMA VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue -24%
  • TL
    THE LONGLEAF ALLIANCE INC
    one grant, 2019 · $3k · revenue +11%
  • MD
    MISSISSIPPI DELTA NATURE AND LEARNING CENTER
    one grant, 2024 · $1k · revenue -43%
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
Ms Museum of Natural Science Foundation

The foundation was established to support the mississippi museum of natural science though receiving, maintaining and distributing funds exclusively for the benefit of the museum.

Arts & Culture
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
Mississippi Land Trust

To protect fish and wildlife habitat throughout mississippi

Environment
4
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
5
Missoula Community Foundation

To enhance community vitality by inspiring community giving and strengthening nonprofits

Community Improvement
6
Mattole Restoration Council

The restoration of natural systems in the mattole valley watershed and their maintenance at sustainable levels of health and productivity, especially in regards to forests, fisheries, soils, and other native plant and animal communities.

Environment
7
Mississippi River Trust

Preservation of the mississippi river prairies, bottomlands, bayous, coastal savannahs, long leaf pine forests, and scenic rivers and streams

Environment
8
Siskiyou Land Conservancy

The Siskiyou Land Conservancy is a state and federally approved non-profit organization that assists landowners who want to protect the natural values of their land, either through purchase or establishment of conservation easements.

Environment
9
Mississippi Headwaters Audubon Society

Environmental Education and Protection

—
10
Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy

To conserve natural land and open space - including forests, wetlands, meadows, agricultural lands, and places of scenic beauty - to provide habitat for wildlife and to enrich the lives of people.

Environment
11
Memphis Zoological Foundation

Memphis Zoological Foundation will operate activities that support the mission of the Memphis Zoological Society and other mission-aligned organization in animal conservation.

Animals
12
Bayou Land Conservancy

To preserve land along streams for flood control, clean water, and wildlife in the geographical area that drains into lake houston.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal Plain; the most unlike its peers is Community Foundation of Washington County 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

10 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. 10 of the 13 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COMMUNITY FOUND OF WASHINGTON CNTY: $28,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY FOUND OF WASHING…THE NATURE CONSERVANCY OF MS: $6,500 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY OF …+1 more: $1,000 · OtherMISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE: $35,000 · Crime & LegalMISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JU…ELLIS MARSALIS CENTER FOR MUSIC INC: $30,000 · Human ServicesELLIS MARSALIS CENTER …LAND TRUST FOR THE MISSISSIPPI COASTAL PLAIN: $14,500 · EnvironmentLAND TRUST FOR THE …MISSISSIPPIS LOWER DELTA PARTNERSHIP: $8,750 · EnvironmentMISSISSIPPIS LOWER …THE LONGLEAF ALLIANCE INC: $3,000 · EnvironmentTHE LONGLEAF ALLIAN…COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $12,500 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY …SONOMA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,000 · PhilanthropySONOMA COU…DELTA WIND BIRDS: $6,500 · AnimalsSONOMA VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $5,000 · HealthMISSISSIPPI DELTA NATURE AND LEARNING CENTER: $1,000 · Health
Other$35,500Crime & Legal$35,000Human Services$30,000Environment$26,250Philanthropy$13,500Animals$6,500Health$6,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE: $35,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetELLIS MARSALIS CENTER FOR MUSIC INC: $30,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetLAND TRUST FOR THE MISSISSIPPI COASTAL PLAIN: $14,500 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $12,500 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetMISSISSIPPIS LOWER DELTA PARTNERSHIP: $8,750 over 8y, 3.4% of budgetDELTA WIND BIRDS: $6,500 over 3y, 7.9% of budgetSONOMA VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE LONGLEAF ALLIANCE INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSONOMA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISSISSIPPI DELTA NATURE AND LEARNING CENTER: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Shadetree Partners Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Shadetree Partners Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    4report 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, FY20–24
    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 Shadetree Partners Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Shadetree Partners 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 13 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 Shadetree Partners’ filings →

    More from the funding graph