Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation Dossiers
Plinth

· Private foundation

The Garfield Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$3.5M
Granted FY2020
80
Grants FY2020
20
States reached
$870k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

70% of The Garfield Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Rockefeller Family Fund Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 16 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2020, the last year The Garfield Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 49 organizations, $3M. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

45
’17
41
’18
46
’19
49
’20
24
’21
15
’22
17
’23
16
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What you fund
0199% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.

Environment$5.5MPhilanthropy$3.7MHealth$2.6MEmployment$815kCommunity Improvement$605kArts & Culture$539kEducation$404kCivil Rights$349kOther$0
02FY2020 · 80 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k47 grants · $160k
  • $10k–50k13 grants · $312k
  • $50k–250k18 grants · $1.6M
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.5M
$5,500
Median grant
20
States reached
$30M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLEAN PRODUCTION ACTION INC$870,117
MINNEAPOLIS FOUNDATION$585,000
CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK$244,872
LABOR INSTITUTE$194,872
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH$184,872
CAROLD INSTITUTE$100,000
FORUM FOR THE FUTURE$100,000
COMMON FUTURE$75,000
WINROCK INTERNATIONAL$75,000
ENERGY ACTION NETWORK$65,000
INQUIRING SYSTEMS INC$60,000
FUNDERS' NETWORK FOR SMART GROWTH AND LIVABLE COMMUNITIES$57,000
NATURE FOR ALL$50,000
TREE PEOPLE INC$50,000
CAPITAL INSTITUTE$50,000
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–22, $87k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 31% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%MUSTARD SEED THE: $10k → 7%CAPITAL INSTITUTE: $50k → 9%TRU Community Care: $500 → 12%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES - LOS ANGELES: $8k → 14%PASADENA SENIOR CENTER: $6k → 14%PASADENA SENIOR CENTER: $6k → 14%Pasadena Senior Center: $4k → 14%PASADENA SENIOR CENTER: $2k → 14%PASADENA SENIOR CENTER: $2k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Which US states your grants reach

VT
NH
WA
MN
IL
WI
NY
MA
OR
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
CO
KY
VA
MD
AZ
NM
AR
NC
DC
LA
AL
FL

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 19% of The Garfield Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.

The Garfield Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 3.2% directed abroad (not shown)

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$10M · 80 repeat orgs$2.0M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +39% since the first grant, against +34% for the ones you funded once.

80 repeat relationships — 50 still active in FY2020, 30 since wound down; 43 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call). Read against FY2020, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

80
47

Total granted

$10M
$1.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
+34%

Still filing today

73%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k 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
EnvironmentHealthEducationCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyAnimalsOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • CE
    Children's Environmental Health Network
    5× · 2017–2021 · $1.0M · revenue +66% · 35% of their budget
  • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $385k · revenue +41%
  • FF
    FORUM FOR THE FUTURE US INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $370k · revenue +73%

Funded once

  • BA
    BlueGreen Alliance Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $213k · revenue +34%
  • PF
    PISCES FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue -91%
  • WI
    WINROCK INTERNATIONAL
    one grant, 2019 · $75k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
2
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
3
Environment Next Inc

Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues. we provide leadership, outreach and communication support, grants, and investments to empower leaders and their ideas…

Environment
4
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
5
Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech
6
Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide

Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.

—
7
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…

International
8
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
9
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
10
Center for International Environmental Law Inc

To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…

International
11
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
12
Terraset

Terraset uses philanthropic capital to purchase permanent, high-quality carbon removal. we pool donations from individuals, foundations, family offices, and donor advised funds, and make strategic purchases of high-quality carbon removal…

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink and the most unlike its peers is The McConnell Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyCommunity FoundationsPolicy Research and AdvocacyAffordable Housing Developm…Pregnancy Support ServicesLocal Food System Organizat…Independent K-12 SchoolsCancer Support ServicesAnimal Rescue and ShelterSenior Support ServicesOrchestra and Ensemble Perf…Community Arts CentersFaith-Based Liberal Arts Co…Environmental Conservation …
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 34 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%1%<5yr14%5%5–10yr19%12%10–20yr16%33%20–35yr13%29%35–55yr16%20%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%2%5–10yr19%25%10–20yr16%28%20–35yr13%15%35–55yr16%31%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/121
the rest of the field
13%
240,396/1,819,444

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

05the grantee network

119 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 119 of the 176 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
27
Early backer (in before they grew)
118/119
Grantees still filing
87/119
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

CLEAN PRODUCTION ACTION INC — $2,480,334 · EnvironmentCLEAN PRODUCTION ACTION INCNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC — $385,000 · EnvironmentNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCI…TREEPEOPLE INC — $267,500 · EnvironmentTREEPEOPLE INCBlueGreen Alliance Foundation — $213,300 · EnvironmentENERGY ACTION NETWORK INC — $185,000 · EnvironmentWATER FOUNDATION — $180,000 · Environment+21 more — $773,377 · Environment+21 moreTHE MINNEAPOLIS FOUNDATION — $2,510,000 · PhilanthropyTHE MINNEAPOLIS FOUNDATIONROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND INC — $750,000 · PhilanthropyROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND INC+9 more — $455,000 · Philanthropy+9 moreTHE LABOR INSTITUTE INC — $815,458 · OtherTHE LABOR INSTITUTE INCFORUM FOR THE FUTURE US INC — $370,000 · OtherFORUM FOR THE FUTURE US INCMERCURY POLICY PROJECTTIDES — $315,000 · OtherMERCURY POLICY PROJECTTIDESCAROLD INSTITUTE THE — $255,000 · OtherCAROLD INSTITUTE THEVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC — $239,500 · OtherVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC+97 more — $1,795,861 · Other+97 moreChildren's Environmental Health Network — $1,028,008 · HealthChildren's Enviro…Center for Environmental Health — $545,008 · HealthCenter for Enviro…BREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS — $295,000 · HealthBREAST CANCER PRE…CONSUMERS FOR DENTAL CHOICE INC — $182,000 · HealthCONSUMERS FOR DEN…LOS ANGELES ALLIANCE FOR A NEW ECONOMY — $135,000 · HealthLOS ANGELES ALLIA…PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES — $92,000 · Health+7 more — $102,000 · HealthCOMMUNITY PARTNERS — $110,000 · Community ImprovementMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER — $75,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMON FUTURE — $75,000 · Community ImprovementPOLICYLINK — $65,000 · Community ImprovementINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC — $60,000 · Community ImprovementGREATER TRENTON INC — $50,000 · Community ImprovementRISING TIDE CAPITAL INC AND SUBSIDIARIES — $25,000 · Community Improvement+1 more — $2,467 · Community ImprovementINSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC CLARITY — $280,000 · Social ScienceTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION — $35,000 · Social Science+2 more — $7,000 · Social ScienceUNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOUNDATION INCORPORATED — $115,000 · EducationThe McConnell Foundation — $55,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION — $40,000 · EducationPOLYTECHNIC SCHOOL — $20,500 · EducationSTERLING COLLEGE — $16,000 · EducationTHE RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR WALDORF EDUCATION INC — $15,000 · EducationOUR SISTERS SCHOOL — $10,500 · Education+4 more — $15,500 · Education
Environment$4,484,511Philanthropy$3,715,000Other$3,790,819Health$2,379,016Community Improvement$462,467Social Science$322,000Education$287,500

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTHE MINNEAPOLIS FOUNDATION — $2,510,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetCLEAN PRODUCTION ACTION INC — $2,480,334 over 5y, 47% of budgetChildren's Environmental Health Network — $1,028,008 over 5y, 35% of budgetTHE LABOR INSTITUTE INC — $815,458 over 5y, 15% of budgetROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND INC — $750,000 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetCenter for Environmental Health — $545,008 over 4y, 5.0% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC — $385,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetFORUM FOR THE FUTURE US INC — $370,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetBREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS — $295,000 over 2y, 9.8% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC CLARITY — $280,000 over 4y, 100% of budgetTREEPEOPLE INC — $267,500 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetBlueGreen Alliance Foundation — $213,300 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetENERGY ACTION NETWORK INC — $185,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetCONSUMERS FOR DENTAL CHOICE INC — $182,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetWATER FOUNDATION — $180,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetLOS ANGELES ALLIANCE FOR A NEW ECONOMY — $135,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetURBAN SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTORS NETWORK — $125,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOUNDATION INCORPORATED — $115,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY PARTNERS — $110,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetNATURE FOR ALL — $100,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetTHE FUNDERS NETWORK INC — $92,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES — $92,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MARION INSTITUTE INC — $88,750 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetTHE STORY OF STUFF PROJECT — $82,275 over 4y, 5.9% of budgetHEAL THE BAY — $80,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER — $75,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCOMMON FUTURE — $75,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetWINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT — $75,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER COUNTY — $74,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetPOLICYLINK — $65,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE FORBES FUNDS — $60,750 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetWorldLink — $60,000 over 1y, 59% of budgetINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC — $60,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetThe McConnell Foundation — $55,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE ENERGY FOUNDATION — $55,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP — $55,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetLIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION — $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetGREATER TRENTON INC — $50,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetCAPITAL INSTITUTE — $50,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetSUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INC — $50,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES — $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRainforest Action Network — $45,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL GRANTMAKERS ASSOCIATION — $44,602 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetLOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER — $40,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION — $40,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION — $35,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWILDLIFE WAYSTATION — $32,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetWORLDWOMENWORK — $30,000 over 3y, 4.0% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Resources Legacy FundThe William & Flora H…Freedom Together Foun…Climateworks Foundati…The Schmidt Family Fo…PatagoniaorgThe McKnight Foundati…California Community …The Marisla FoundationThe Kresge FoundationUnited States Energy …Amalgamated Charitabl…
Resources Legacy FundCA27.7× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Resources Legacy Fund · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Freedom Together Foundation · Climateworks Foundation · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The McKnight Foundation · California Community Foundation · The Marisla Foundation · The Kresge Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization The Garfield Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 150%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
  • Buzzards Bay Coalition — 37% of income from government
  • United Way of Greater New Bedford Inc — 35% of income from government
  • Sterling College — 10% of income from government
  • Passage Theatre Company Inc — 10% of income from government
  • New Bedford Economic Development Council Inc — 2% of income from government
  • Artists for Humanity Inc — 2% of income from government
  • Old Dartmouth Historical Society — 2% of income from government
  • Rising Tide Capital Inc and Subsidiaries — 2% of income from government
  • The Marion Institute Inc — 1% of income from government
  • Our Sisters School — 0% of income from government
  • Energy Action Network Inc — 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
15get no government money at all
23report 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

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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Garfield Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Garfield 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 176 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines