Skip to content

· Private foundation

Sonedna Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$959k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$500k
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 2024.

Education$8.2MCommunity Improvement$1.8MHuman Services$664kSocial Science$302kArts & Culture$6k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $43k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $406k
  • $250k+1 grant · $500k
$31,756
Median grant
4
States reached
$6.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MISSISSIPPI EARLY LEARNING ALLIANCE (MELA)$500,000
Individual grant recipient$218,047
WEST TELLAHATCHIE$100,810
INSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES$86,986
Individual grant recipient$31,756
ASPEN INSTITUTE$11,000
REZILIENT KIDZ$3,853
DOLLYWOOD FOUNDATION$3,584
MS HEAD START ASSOCATION$2,800
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 (FY17–24, $680k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 98% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%SPRINGBOARD COLLABORATIVE: $9k → 22%PEARSON FOUNDATION: $12k → 10%INSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES: $168k → 19%FOR LOVE OF CHILDREN: $11k → 14%INSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES: $149k → 19%INSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES: $87k → 19%INSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES: $66k → 19%INSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES: $65k → 19%ELOHIM CHILD CARE & LEARNING CENTER: $74k → 31%ELOHIM CHILD CARE & LEARNING CENTER: $27k → 31%ELOHIM CHILD CARE & LEARNING CENTER: $11k → 31%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

MA
PA
NJ
CO
MD
TN
DC
MS
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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$10M · 12 repeat orgs$444k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
6

Total granted

$10M
$75k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+109%

Still filing today

50%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $368k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesEducationSocial ScienceCommunity 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

  • NM
    NORTH MISSISSIPPI EDUCATION CONSORTIUM INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $2.9M · revenue +35%
  • IO
    INSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICESINC
    5× · 2017–2024 · $536k · revenue +48%
  • EC
    ELOHIM CHILDCARE & LEARNING CENTER
    3× · 2017–2019 · $112k · revenue +44% · 54% of their budget

Funded once

  • LF
    LEADING FOR CHILDREN
    one grant, 2023 · $32k · revenue -28%
  • PF
    PEARSON FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $12k · revenue +109%
  • FL
    FOR LOVE OF CHILDREN
    one grant, 2019 · $11k · revenue +20%
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
Early Learning Indiana Inc

Early learning indiana (eli) is on a mission to ensure every child is empowered with essential skills to thrive in kindergarten and beyond. (see schedule o for continuation)

Human Services
2
Learning Policy Institute

The Learning Policy Institute (LPI) conducts and disseminates independent, high-quality research to improve learning for all children. A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, LPI connects policymakers and stakeholders at the local, state,…

Education
3
Educare of Lincoln Inc

To help young children thrive socially, emotionally and academically through high-quality early childhood education, and in partnership with their families and the community.

Education
4
Pahara Institute Inc

Pahara institute strengthens and sustains values-driven leaders who are transforming public education so that every child is prepared to lead a free and fulfilling life.

—
5
The Learning Community School Inc

Education of students grades kindergarten thru 8th offering experiential learning, personalized instruction (10:1 student teacher ratio), team conflict resolution, high academic standards and multi age classes and mentorship.

Education
6
International Child Resource Institute

ICRI provides high quality education and care to children and their families, responsive and emergent to each childs unique needs and strengths.

—
7
Lolo Preschool and Childcare

Lolo preschool provides a safe and nurturing environment where children can mature independently while being challenged and guided to explore the world around them.

Human Services
8
Enroll Indy Inc

Enroll indy helps families choose schools that meet their children's needs by providing a one-stop enrollment process, school information that is relevant and easy to understand, and data to inform school improvement in indianapolis,…

Education
9
Alternative Schools Inc

To help each child reach his/her full potential by cultivating an active village of parents, community members, and stakeholders involved in providing an individual, personal, and conceptual learning environment for each student.

Education
10
Reading Partners

To ensure that every student can become a confident, independent, and lifelong reader by partnering with schools and communities to provide personalized, evidence-based literacy support and individualized instruction. the organization…

Education
11
Partners in Child Development Inc

To provide educational and therapeutic services, at a professional level, for infants, toddlers and preschool children up to 12 years and their families through supporting the family unit and working with each child to develop his or her…

Human Services
12
The Philadelphia School

The philadelphia school educates children for a future that is impossible to know but not impossible to shape. learn here. go anywhere.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Leading for Children; the most unlike its peers is North Mississippi Education Consortium 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

12 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. 12 of the 24 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MISSISSIPPI EARLY LEARNING ALLIANCE (MELA): $2,237,500 · OtherMISSISSIPPI EARLY LEARNING ALLIANCE (MELA)TALLAHATCHIE EARLY LEARNING ALLIANCE (TELA): $1,740,219 · OtherTALLAHATCHIE EARLY LEARNING ALLIANCE (TELA)CIVITAS STRATEGIES LLC: $1,545,544 · OtherCIVITAS STRATEGIES LLCEAST TALLAHTACHIE SCHOOL DISTRIC: $634,713 · OtherEAST TALLAHTACHIE SCHOOL DISTRICWEST TALLAHATCHIE SCHOOL DISTRICT: $228,524 · Other+8 more: $373,781 · Other+8 moreNORTH MISSISSIPPI EDUCATION CONSORTIUM INC: $2,889,749 · EducationNORTH MISSISSIPPI EDUCATION CO…+1 more: $32,024 · EducationINSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICESINC: $535,836 · Human ServicesELOHIM CHILDCARE & LEARNING CENTER: $112,005 · Human Services+4 more: $36,118 · Human ServicesAMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES: $290,585 · Social ScienceTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $11,000 · Social ScienceTHE HARWOOD INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC INNOVATION: $237,031 · Community Improvement
Other$6,760,281Education$2,921,773Human Services$683,959Social Science$301,585Community Improvement$237,031

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 budgetNORTH MISSISSIPPI EDUCATION CONSORTIUM INC: $2,889,749 over 3y, 19% of budgetINSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICESINC: $535,836 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetAMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES: $290,585 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HARWOOD INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC INNOVATION: $237,031 over 3y, 8.7% of budgetELOHIM CHILDCARE & LEARNING CENTER: $112,005 over 3y, 54% of budgetLEADING FOR CHILDREN: $32,024 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $11,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOR LOVE OF CHILDREN: $10,750 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSPRINGBOARD COLLABORATIVE: $9,490 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE DOLLYWOOD FOUNDATION: $6,478 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetREZILIENTKIDZ: $3,853 over 1y, 0.8% 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 NORTH MISSISSIPPI EDUCATION CONSORTIUM INC ↗
  • Who funds INSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY SERVICESINC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES ↗
  • Who funds THE HARWOOD INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC INNOVATION ↗
  • Who funds ELOHIM CHILDCARE & LEARNING CENTER ↗
  • Who funds LEADING FOR CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds PEARSON FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds FOR LOVE OF CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds SPRINGBOARD COLLABORATIVE ↗
  • Who funds THE DOLLYWOOD FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds REZILIENTKIDZ ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Leading for Children: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
3report 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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Sonedna Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Sonedna Foundation 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 24 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Sonedna’s filings →

More from the funding graph