How much did THE JEREMY AND HANNELORE GRANTHAM grant in FY2024?

Environment$117MInternational$13MScience & Tech$8.5MHealth$6.2MPhilanthropy$3.1MFood & Nutrition$2.3MEducation$1.6MSocial Science$500kAnimals$500kOther$25M

02FY2024 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

$10k–50k1 grant · $34k
$50k–250k5 grants · $608k
$250k+18 grants · $34M

$1,000,000

Median grant

States reached

$468M

Total assets

Largest grants

INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT$3,782,370
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$3,703,448
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND$3,483,828
ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE$3,445,000
HOUR GLASS CLIMATE INC$3,100,000
WINDWARD FUND$3,000,000
HEALTH IN HARMONY INC$2,376,945
OCEAN VISION INC$2,000,000
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND$2,000,000
CARBON180$1,975,845
SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS$1,000,000
SPARK CLIMATE SOLUTIONS INC$1,000,000
EARTHJUSTICE$900,000
THIRD ACT EDUCATIONAL FUND INC$600,000
INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS$500,000

02The need

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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11% — the area typically sits at 10%. 50% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

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 line in 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

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.

68%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$121M · 24 repeat orgs$57M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +109% since the first grant, against +81% for the ones you funded once.

24 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$121M

$44M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+109%

+81%

Still filing today

100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EnvironmentInternationalScience & TechHealthFood & NutritionPhilanthropyOther

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

R
RARE
7× · 2017–2024 · $23M · revenue +53% · 31% of their budget
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
7× · 2017–2024 · $10M · revenue +46%
ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE
4× · 2020–2024 · $9.8M · revenue +229%

Funded once

SI
SAVANNA INSTITUTEgraduated
one grant, 2023 · $12M · revenue +752% · 63% of their budget
CM
CARBON MAPPER
one grant, 2022 · $8.0M · revenue -49% · 35% of their budget
GW
GLOBAL WITNESSgraduated
one grant, 2023 · $6.8M · revenue +43% · 50% of their budget

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.

CarbonPlan

We work collaboratively to build open tools and resources for the evaluation and deployment of robust climate programs. We share analyses through public communication and collaboration with journalists in order to foster effective climate…

Environment

Environment Now

—

Global Forest Generation

Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…

Environment

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

Nature for Justice

Mobilize funds and provide the necessary technical resources to leading, in-country organizations working with local, indigenous communities to achieve climate resiliency.

Environment

Climate Rights International

CRI is an international climate and human rights monitoring and advocacy organization dedicated to preventing climate change and human rights abuses.

Environment

Collaborative Earth Institute

We are scientists and engineers, humanists and designers. Working entirely in the open, we conduct scientific research and develop technologies that catalyze ecological regeneration at planetary scale.

Science & Tech

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

Cascade Climate Inc

To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.

Environment

The Climate Group Inc

Climate group brings together networks of international businesses and governments to shift markets toward the goal of a world of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, with greater prosperity for all.

Environment

NatureServe

NatureServe is the global leader in data, science and technology to conserve biodiversity.

Environment

Rainforest Foundation Inc

The rainforest foundation us provides financial and technical support to indigenous communities and organizations to secure their rights to their traditional lands and protect their forests and livelihoods. we are tackling the world's most…

Environment

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

Your grantees are a median of 20 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 13% of your grantees by number, and just 11% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/52

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,513

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.

04the grantee network

52 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

52/52

Grantees still filing

37/52

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Environment$116,979,033Other$27,608,207International$13,382,370Science & Tech$8,545,398Health$6,226,945Philanthropy$3,100,000Food & Nutrition$2,338,917

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.

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.

Grantham Foundation for the ProtectionMA26.8× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Grantham Foundation for the Protection · Impactassetsinc · Maine Community Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Marisla Foundation · Tides Foundation · Climateworks Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The Passport Foundation · Bernard and Anne Spitzer · Skyline 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 organisation THE JEREMY AND HANNELORE GRANTHAM 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

6get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: CTREES.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~8 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 3 filed years.

Track record & reputation

medium risk

3 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 880538773 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on CTREES, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 8 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 96% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham?

Find your warmest path to The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

THE JEREMY AND HANNELORE GRANTHAM

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

52 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham?

More from the funding graph

THE JEREMY AND HANNELORE GRANTHAM

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

52 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham?

More from the funding graph