· Public charity
The Good Growth Alliance
THE GOOD GROWTH ALLIANCE works collaboratively with partners in the public and private sectors to engage in consumer education and advocacy related to the promotion of greenspaces and gardening (indoor and outdoor).
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
- $250k+1 grant · $800k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO FOUNDATION | $800,000 |
| COALITION TO REGULATE MARIJUANA LIKE ALCOHOL | $50,000 |
| NEW JERSEY PARTICIPATION PROJECT | $25,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY20–20, $40k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those 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.
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 76% of The Good Growth Alliance’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.
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 +7200% since the first grant, against +27% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 91% 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
- TSTHE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO FOUNDATION6× · 2019–2024 · $5.6M · revenue ×73 · 58% of their budget
- TPTEXAS PATIENTS FIRST FOUNDATION2× · 2022–2023 · $222k
- LILONG ISLAND PROGRESSIVE COALITION INC2× · 2020–2021 · $131k · revenue +19%
Funded once
- CECANNABIS ECONOMIC EQUALITY COALITIONone grant, 2022 · $300k
- FTFAIR TRADE AND EQUITY IN CANNABIS INCone grant, 2022 · $275k
- NANEW APPROACH ADVOCACY FUNDone grant, 2021 · $150k · revenue -65%
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.
New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, analysis, and strategic communications.
To empower citizens and encourage greater involvement in the government process
Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote
Research and education of United Nations activities
New Approach Montana is a registered Montana ballot question committee in support of two 2020 ballot initiatives for the legalization of marijuana for adults 21 and older.
To distribute educational information to the public about marijuana by increasing, identifying, and activating supporters of non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies.
Glasshouse Policy removes the gap between citizens and policymakers, creating a more engaged citizenry and a more responsive and representative government.
Researching policy ideas on climate and clean energy in India, engaging legislators and business leaders to discuss those ideas.
Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay
The National Legal Advocacy Network d/b/a Grassroots Law & Organizing for Workers is a legal non-profit organization dedicated to using legal strategies as a tool to build power for marginalized workers and create systemic change through…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Drug Policy Action and the most unlike its peers is The Scotts Miracle-Gro Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 15 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 THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW APPROACH ADVOCACY FUND ↗
- Who funds LONG ISLAND PROGRESSIVE COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Conference of Western Attorneys General AG Alliance ↗
- Who funds Community Voices Heard Power Inc ↗
- Who funds GOPAC EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds New Jersey Participation Project Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN LEGISLATORS INC ↗
- Who funds DRUG POLICY ACTION ↗
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Good Growth Alliance 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 Good Growth Alliance?
Find your warmest path to The Good Growth Alliance 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.