· Public charity
The Giving Grove
Provide healthy calories, strengthen community and improve the urban environment through a nationwide network of sustainable little orchards to dramatically increase access to healthy food.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $25k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $195k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TREE PITTSBURGH | $45,000 |
| RETREEUS | $25,000 |
| THE WORKS INC | $25,000 |
| THE NASHVILLE FOOD PROJECT | $25,000 |
| PROJECT PANDO | $25,000 |
| SEED ST LOUIS | $24,381 |
| UNITY GARDENS | $13,333 |
| KANSAS CITY COMMUNITY GARDENS INC | $12,408 |
| FOOD WELL ALLIANCE | $9,350 |
| GROW NORTH TEXAS | $8,000 |
| TILTH ALLIANCE | $7,726 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 88% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 22% of The Giving Grove’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. Read by recipient address, 5% of the giving stays in MO; read by stated purpose it is 15% — more of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +0% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $75k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- GNGLEANING NETWORK OF TEXAS4× · 2022–2025 · $186k · revenue +85%
- FOFRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FOREST3× · 2023–2025 · $93k · revenue +18%
KEEP GROWING DETROIT2× · 2023–2024 · $91k · revenue +39%
Funded once
- MTMEMPHIS TILTHone grant, 2021 · $13k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Development in Gardening is improving the nutrition and livelihoods of some of the world's most uniquely marginalized people by teaching them to plant regenerative gardens that grow health, wealth, and a sense of belonging.
Toledo GROWs nurtures the joy of growing. Toledo GROWs educates the community about the value of local nutritious food. Our active urban farm and support for community gardens promote healthy eating and creates a region alive with gardens.
Brooklyn Heights Community Garden cultivates healthy community through growing food, intergenerational learning and creative play.
Community groundworks connects individuals to urban agricultural and natural lands within a diverse learning community. we grow wholesome and organic food for local tables, steward urban natural areas, inspire healthful eating, and offer…
To advocate for a quality, equitable, and robust food system, increasing access to healthy,nourishing food for all.
DC Greens advances health equity by building a just and resilient food system.
To grow healthy futures through urban agriculture.
Gardeners in Community Development (GICD) educates and empowers people to work together on food production community gardens and urban agriculture projects to benefit themselves and their community.
Urban Tilth is a California nonprofit organization committed to educate diverse communities about organic gardening and to support a network of gardens dedicated to sustainable, local food production. Urban Tilth insipires, hires, and…
Grow food, farms and community in support of a sustainable, healthy and local food system.
Our mission is to empower communities to become smarter, healthier, and more compassionate people through aquaponics.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kansas City Community Gardens Inc and the most unlike its peers is Project Pando Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 17 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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.
- Who funds GLEANING NETWORK OF TEXAS ↗
- Who funds FOOD WELL ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds KANSAS CITY COMMUNITY GARDENS INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FOREST ↗
- Who funds KEEP GROWING DETROIT ↗
- Who funds SEED ST LOUIS ↗
- Who funds TILTH ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds UNITED CHARITABLE ↗
- Who funds DENVER URBAN GARDENS ↗
- Who funds Unity Gardens ↗
- Who funds GREEN UMBRELLA ↗
- Who funds Louisville Grows Incorporated ↗
- Who funds Project Pando Inc ↗
- Who funds NASHVILLE FOOD PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds The Works Inc ↗
- Who funds MEMPHIS TILTH ↗
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.
Open a dossier: National Arbor Day Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Giving Grove 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Giving Grove?
Find your warmest path to The Giving Grove 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.