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

· Public charity

The Baum Foundation

The mission of The Baum Foundation is to improve the quality of people's lives by supporting programs in the arts, education and the environment.

$38k
Granted FY2019
2
Grants FY2019
2
States reached
$26k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2017 to 2019.

Environment$422kCommunity Improvement$19kSocial Science$17kArts & Culture$10kRecreation & Sports$10kScience & Tech$10kFood & Nutrition$8k
02FY2019 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $35,816, the rows itemized in this filing. The $37,516 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,700 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.
$25,816
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Native Conservancy$25,816
The Aspen Institute$10,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 38% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Oceanic Society Expeditions: $7k → 8%The Hydrous: $19k → 10%5 Gyres Institute: $10k → 14%Environmental Defense Fund: $25k → 17%Ocean Doctor Inc: $30k → 14%Aspen Valley Ski-Snowboard Cl: $10k → 6%Rocky Mountain Institute: $10k → 12%Eyak Preservation Council: $50k → 7%The Kitchen Community: $8k → 10%The Aspen Institute: $10k → 14%Aspen Art Museum: $10k → 6%Native Conservancy: $26k → 7%Exploratorium: $10k → 10%The Aspen Institute: $7k → 14%Aspen Center for Environmenta: $7k → 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.
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 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
Schmidt Ocean Institute
Science & Tech
2
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
3
Earth & Space Research

Increase societal understanding of the earth system through scientific research and education.

Science & Tech
4
The Coral Reef and Marine Science Foundation Inc C/O James Bildner
—
5
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
6
Ocean Research and Educational
Science & Tech
7
Ocean Alliance Project

Protecting and promoting the marine biodiversity of Hawai'i through coral restoration, ecological monitoring, regenerative tourism, and cultural integration

Science & Tech
8
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
—
9
Clean Reefs
Environment
10
Ocean Genome Atlas Project

The Ocean Genome Atlas Project OGAP aims to collect, classify, sequence and map the genomic information of organisms representing at least 80 of the extant marine species worldwide. Deploying a fleet of advanced but cost effective research…

Science & Tech
11
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
12
Environment Now
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated; the most unlike its peers is The 5 Gyres Institute. 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

16 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. 16 of the 17 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/16
Grantees still filing
9/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OCEANELDERS INC: $127,000 · EnvironmentOCEANELDERS INCEyak Preservation Council dba Cultural Defense Fund: $50,000 · EnvironmentEyak Preservation Council dba Cultural Defense FundOCEAN DOCTOR INC: $30,032 · EnvironmentOCEAN DOCTOR INCGREEN FORESTS WORK INC: $30,000 · EnvironmentGREEN FORESTS WORK INCNATIVE CONSERVANCY: $25,816 · EnvironmentNATIVE CONSERVANCYENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $25,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED+1 more: $7,200 · EnvironmentSylvia Earle AllianceMission Blue: $100,000 · Science & TechSylvia Earle AllianceM…Rocky Mountain Institute: $10,000 · OtherThe 5 Gyres Institute: $10,000 · OtherAspen Valley Ski-Snowboard Cl: $10,000 · OtherOceanic Society Expeditions: $6,790 · OtherTHE EXPLORATORIUM: $10,000 · Arts & CultureASPEN ART MUSEUM: $10,000 · Arts & CultureTHE HYDROUS: $18,600 · Community ImprovementTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $16,600 · Social ScienceBig Green: $8,000 · Food & Nutrition
Environment$295,048Science & Tech$100,000Other$36,790Arts & Culture$20,000Community Improvement$18,600Social Science$16,600Food & Nutrition$8,000

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 budgetSylvia Earle AllianceMission Blue: $100,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetEyak Preservation Council dba Cultural Defense Fund: $50,000 over 1y, 21% of budgetOCEAN DOCTOR INC: $30,032 over 1y, 13% of budgetGREEN FORESTS WORK INC: $30,000 over 1y, 9.1% of budgetNATIVE CONSERVANCY: $25,816 over 1y, 10% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HYDROUS: $18,600 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $16,600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE EXPLORATORIUM: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe 5 Gyres Institute: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetASPEN ART MUSEUM: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES: $7,200 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetOceanic Society Expeditions: $6,790 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

Silicon Valley Commun…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA15× affinity6 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 The Baum Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Baum Foundation. 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
    1report 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.

    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 17 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2020) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2019, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Baum’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