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

· 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.

$220k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
—
States reached
$45k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Food & Nutrition$1.2MEnvironment$72k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $25k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $195k
$24,381
Median grant
—
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TREE PITTSBURGH$45,000
THE NASHVILLE FOOD PROJECT$25,000
THE WORKS INC$25,000
PROJECT PANDO$25,000
RETREEUS$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
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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 88% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%TREE PITTSBURGH: $25k → 11%GROW NORTH TEXAS: $113k → 14%BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $67k → 16%KEEP GROWING DETROIT: $52k → 21%KANSAS CITY COMMUNITY GARDENS: $44k → 15%SEED ST LOUIS: $47k → 21%MEMPHIS TILTH: $13k → 17%FOOD WELL ALLIANCE: $54k → 13%DENVER URBAN GARDENS: $33k → 12%UNITY GARDENS: $25k → 13%GREEN UMBRELLA: $33k → 16%TILTH ALLIANCE: $42k → 9%UNITED CHARITABLE: $25k → 4%LOUISVILLE GROWS: $25k → 15%TREE PITTSBURGH: $23k → 11%GROW NORTH TEXAS: $40k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 16%KEEP GROWING DETROIT: $39k → 21%KANSAS CITY COMMUNITY GARDENS INC: $28k → 15%SEED ST LOUIS: $17k → 21%FOOD WELL ALLIANCE: $51k → 13%DENVER URBAN GARDENS: $28k → 12%GREEN UMBRELLA: $27k → 16%TILTH ALLIANCE: $33k → 9%RETREEUS UNDER UMBRELLA OF UNITED CHARITABLE: $25k → 4%LOUISVILLE GROWS: $8k → 15%GROW NORTH TEXAS: $25k → 14%KANSAS CITY COMMUNITY GARDENS: $18k → 15%FOOD WELL ALLIANCE: $13k → 13%DENVER URBAN GARDENS: $13k → 12%GREEN UMBRELLA: $13k → 16%TILTH ALLIANCE: $6k → 9%LOUISVILLE GROWS: $8k → 15%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

WA
MT
MI
IN
OH
PA
CO
MO
KY
VA
TN
GA
TX
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 22% of The Giving Grove’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 5% of the giving stays in MO; by stated purpose, 15%.

The Giving Grovelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 12 repeat orgs$88k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +3% since the first grant, against 0% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
1

Total granted

$1.1M
$13k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+3%
0%

Still filing today

92%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $75k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentFood & NutritionCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • GN
    GLEANING NETWORK OF TEXAS
    4× · 2022–2025 · $186k · revenue +85%
  • KC
    KANSAS CITY COMMUNITY GARDENS INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $103k · revenue +3%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FOREST
    3× · 2023–2025 · $93k · revenue +88%

Funded once

  • MT
    MEMPHIS TILTH
    one grant, 2021 · $13k
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
Development in Gardening

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.

Community Improvement
2
Toledo GROWs Inc

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.

Environment
3
Brooklyn Heights Community Garden

Brooklyn Heights Community Garden cultivates healthy community through growing food, intergenerational learning and creative play.

Community Improvement
4
Community Groundworks Inc

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…

—
5
Sustainable Growers
—
6
Urban Tilth

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…

Environment
7
Dc Greens Inc

DC Greens advances health equity by building a just and resilient food system.

Community Improvement
8
Urban Seeds Inc

To advocate for a quality, equitable, and robust food system, increasing access to healthy,nourishing food for all.

Environment
9
The Neighborhood Garden Project

We cultivate people through presence, soil, and shared work. The Neighborhood Garden Project exists to help individuals reconnect with identity, healing, and belonging by creating thoughtful spaces where people return to who they are…

Human Services
10
Tricycle Gardens

To grow healthy futures through urban agriculture.

—
11
Gardeners in Community Development

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.

Environment
12
Urban Harvest Stl

Urban Harvest STL builds community around inclusive and resilient local food systems.

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kansas City Community Gardens Inc; 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.
05the 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/16
Grantees still filing
8/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KANSAS CITY COMMUNITY GARDENS INC: $103,015 · EnvironmentKANSAS CITY COMMUNITY GARDENS INCFRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FOREST: $92,500 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FORESTSEED ST LOUIS: $87,868 · EnvironmentSEED ST LOUISTILTH ALLIANCE: $87,814 · EnvironmentTILTH ALLIANCEDENVER URBAN GARDENS: $72,500 · EnvironmentDENVER URBAN GARDENSGREEN UMBRELLA: $71,500 · EnvironmentGREEN UMBRELLAProject Pando Inc: $25,000 · EnvironmentGLEANING NETWORK OF TEXAS: $186,084 · Food & NutritionGLEANING NETWORK OF TEXASFOOD WELL ALLIANCE: $127,350 · Food & NutritionFOOD WELL ALLIANCEUnity Gardens: $72,166 · Food & NutritionUnity GardensLouisville Grows Incorporated: $40,000 · Food & NutritionLouisville Grows IncorporatedNASHVILLE FOOD PROJECT INC: $25,000 · Food & NutritionNASHVILLE FOOD PROJECT INC+1 more: $12,500 · Food & NutritionMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $116,997 · OtherMICHIGAN S…KEEP GROWING DETROIT: $90,970 · Community ImprovementUNITED CHARITABLE: $75,000 · PhilanthropyThe Works Inc: $25,000 · Housing & Shelter
Environment$540,197Food & Nutrition$463,100Other$116,997Community Improvement$90,970Philanthropy$75,000Housing & Shelter$25,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGLEANING NETWORK OF TEXAS: $186,084 over 4y, 12% of budgetFOOD WELL ALLIANCE: $127,350 over 4y, 1.7% of budgetKANSAS CITY COMMUNITY GARDENS INC: $103,015 over 4y, 3.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FOREST: $92,500 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetKEEP GROWING DETROIT: $90,970 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetSEED ST LOUIS: $87,868 over 3y, 4.2% of budgetTILTH ALLIANCE: $87,814 over 4y, 1.0% of budgetUNITED CHARITABLE: $75,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetDENVER URBAN GARDENS: $72,500 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetUnity Gardens: $72,166 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetGREEN UMBRELLA: $71,500 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetLouisville Grows Incorporated: $40,000 over 3y, 3.8% of budgetNASHVILLE FOOD PROJECT INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetProject Pando Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 52% of budgetMEMPHIS TILTH: $12,500 over 1y, 4.3% 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.

National Arbor Day Fo…Charities Aid Foundat…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Arbor Day FoundationNE13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report 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 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.

    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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Giving Grove’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