Skip to content
The Garfield Foundation at a glance

· 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 it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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 it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

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

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

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
FORUM FOR THE FUTURE$100,000
CAROLD INSTITUTE$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
LOS ANGELES ALLIANCE FOR A NEW ECONOMY$50,000
MAKEWAY CHARITABLE SOCIETY$50,000
ALLIED MEDIA PROJECTS$50,000
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 (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. Its 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
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

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
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.
04

Where the work is directed

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

About 19% of The Garfield Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The Garfield Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 3.2% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

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

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against +38% for those 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%
+38%

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
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

  • 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 +93%
  • PF
    PISCES FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue -91%
  • WI
    WINROCK INTERNATIONAL
    one grant, 2019 · $75k
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
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink; 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.
05the grantee network

119 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. 119 of the 176 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
27
Early backer (in before they grew)
118/119
Grantees still filing
86/119
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 ImprovementCOMMON FUTURE: $75,000 · Community ImprovementMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $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 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 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 budgetWINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: $75,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMON FUTURE: $75,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $75,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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 budgetGLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP: $55,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetThe McConnell Foundation: $55,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE ENERGY FOUNDATION: $55,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER TRENTON INC: $50,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetCAPITAL INSTITUTE: $50,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INC: $50,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetRainforest Action Network: $45,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL GRANTMAKERS ASSOCIATION: $44,602 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $40,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER: $40,000 over 1y, 2.9% 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
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.

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

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 Garfield Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Garfield Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 150%6%25%56%100%funder's 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
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 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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 176 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Garfield’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