Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation Dossiers
Plinth

· Public charity

The John T and Jane a Wiederhold Foundation

The John T.

$1.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
21
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$185k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
0184% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2025.

Animals$3.5MEnvironment$2.0MEducation$806kArts & Culture$482kPhilanthropy$87kHuman Services$62kYouth Development$25kCommunity Improvement$25kOther$1.3M
02FY2025 · 21 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $266k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $1.1M
$38,300
Median grant
6
States reached
$33M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Thomas J OConnor Foundation$185,000
Northwest CT Land Conservancy$150,000
Winchester Land Trust Inc$120,000
Dakin Humane Society$100,000
Shelter Animals Count$100,000
Regents of the Uni of Cali$94,000
Cornell University College$90,000
University of Florida Found$90,000
Berkshire Humane Society Inc$75,000
Animal Rescue Foundation Inc$50,000
Cornwall Conservation Trust$38,300
The Connecticut Agricultural$34,600
Housatonic Valley Association$30,000
Western Connecticut State Uni$28,000
Great Mountain Forest$27,400
02The need
03

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:

Your human-services grants (FY22–22, $36k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BEAVER INSTITUTE INC: $36k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 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

ME
NH
NY
MA
OR
OH
NJ
CT
CA
MD
GA
FL

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.

04

Where the work is directed

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

About 14% of The John T and Jane a Wiederhold Foundation’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, 72% of the giving stays in CT; read by stated purpose it is 61% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

The John T and Jane a Wiederhold Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 5.9% directed abroad (not shown)

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.

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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$6.2M · 34 repeat orgs$1.9M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +48% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.

34 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2025, 18 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

34
36

Total granted

$6.2M
$1.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+48%
+14%

Still filing today

91%
92%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $329k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentEducationArts & CulturePhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentOther

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

  • DP
    DAKIN PIONEER VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INC
    5× · 2018–2025 · $549k · revenue +55%
  • Cornell University
    7× · 2018–2025 · $497k · revenue +49%
  • WL
    WINCHESTER LAND TRUST INC
    3× · 2022–2025 · $352k · revenue ×11 · 49% of their budget

Funded once

  • NH
    NEW HAMPSHIRE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
    one grant, 2020 · $200k · revenue +6%
  • ST
    SAVE THE SOUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue +53%
  • OD
    OPEN DOOR VETERINARY COLLECTIVEgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue +93%

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.

1
Land Conservancy of Ridgefield Inc

The Land Conservancy of Ridgefield, Inc. ("the Land Conservancy"), founded in 1967, preserves and protects, for the general benefit of the public, Ridgefield, Connecticut's natural resources including land and water resources, the plant…

Environment
2
Wilton Land Conservation Trust

Protecting, enhancing and conserving open spaces encompassing meadows, woodlands, wetlands, and waterways in the town of wilton ct.

Environment
3
Redding Land Trust Inc

The primary mission of Redding Land Trust is to preserve the natural resources of the Town of Redding, CT and to promote the scientific and educational study of local and natural resources, and to acquire, by gift or purchase, land or…

Environment
4
Connecticut Farmland Trust Inc

Protect Connecticuts farmland for agricultural use by purchasing and accepting donations of agricultural conservation easements

Food & Nutrition
5
Nantucket Conservation Foundation Inc

The nantucket conservation foundation owns, protects, and stewards over 9,000 acres of land and coastal shoreline, conserves nantucket's rare and significant natural resources, and engages in impactful ecological research to inform…

Environment
6
Kennebunk Land Trust

Kennebunk Land Trust's mission is to permanently conserve and steward land to benefit natural and human communities.

Environment
7
Aspetuck Land Trust

Founded in 1966, Aspetuck Land Trust is a non-profit membership ogranization whose mission is to protect land forever and connect people to the natural world.

Environment
8
Sebasticook Regional Land Trust

The mission of the SRLT is to recognize and conserve the rich wild and workinglandscape of Central Maine's Sebasticook River watershed through conservation,stewardship and education. Our focal programs are land conservation for…

Environment
9
Piscataquog Land Conservancy

The Piscataquog Land Conservancy is a nonprofit land conservation organization founded in 1970. Its purpose is to conserve the natural and scenic environment of the Piscataquog, Souhegan and Nashua River watershed communities of southern…

—
10
The Central New York Land Trust Inc

The central new york land trust seeks to preserve and protect natural areas in order to provide our communities clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, and a chance to connect with the land.

Environment
11
Upper Saco Valley Land Trust

The Organization works with local landowners to permanently protect natural land and waters that define its community and enrich the quality of life by purchasing, managing, negotiating and developing conservations easements in the Upper…

Food & Nutrition
12
Wildlands Trust Inc

The wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northwest Connecticut Land Conservancy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Great Mountain Forest Corporation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyEnvironmental Conservation …Community College Foundatio…Animal Rescue and ShelterEquine Therapy ProgramsLocal History MuseumsYouth Development ServicesLocal Food System Organizat…Faith-Based Liberal Arts Co…Community Foundations
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 43 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%2%<5yr14%5%5–10yr19%12%10–20yr16%24%20–35yr13%26%35–55yr16%32%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%3%5–10yr19%17%10–20yr16%15%20–35yr13%26%35–55yr16%39%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
1%1/76
the rest of the field
13%
240,395/1,819,489

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.

05the grantee network

70 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. 70 of the 76 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.

9
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
20
Early backer (in before they grew)
68/70
Grantees still filing
50/70
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

DAKIN PIONEER VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INC — $549,000 · AnimalsDAKIN PIONEER VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INCLITTLE GUILD OF ST FRANCIS — $304,000 · AnimalsLITTLE GUILD OF ST FRANCISShelter Animals Count — $300,000 · AnimalsShelter Animals CountMASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS — $275,000 · AnimalsMASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRU…NEW HAMPSHIRE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS — $200,000 · AnimalsNEW HAMPSHIRE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRU…New York State Animal Protection Federation Education Fund — $185,000 · AnimalsTHOMAS J OCONNOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND ADOPTION CENTER FOUNDATION INC — $185,000 · AnimalsCONNECTICUT HUMANE SOCIETY — $163,000 · AnimalsBIDEAWEE INC — $160,000 · AnimalsANIMAL PROTECTIVE FOUNDATION OF SCHENECTADY INC — $140,013 · AnimalsNEW ENGLAND FEDERATION OF HUMANE SOCIETIES — $133,000 · Animals+18 more — $881,098 · Animals+18 moreWINCHESTER LAND TRUST INC — $352,000 · EnvironmentWINCHESTER LAND TRUST INCNORTHWEST CONNECTICUT LAND CONSERVANCY INC — $325,000 · EnvironmentNORTHWEST CONNECTICUT LAND …NORFOLK LAND TRUST INC — $200,000 · EnvironmentNORFOLK LAND TRUST INCCONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL INC — $180,000 · EnvironmentCONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED…WARREN LAND TRUST INC — $175,000 · EnvironmentWARREN LAND TRUST INCSAVE THE SOUND — $100,000 · EnvironmentBIODIVERSITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE — $96,241 · Environment+16 more — $615,550 · Environment+16 moreTOWN OF BRANFORD — $285,000 · OtherTOWN OF BRANFORDNew Hartford Land Trust Inc — $250,000 · OtherNew Hartford Land …THE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $250,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERV…Cornwall Conservation Trust Inc — $172,300 · OtherCornwall Conservat…UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS — $145,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALI…NORTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION AND REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL INC — $57,743 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT — $50,000 · Other+6 more — $147,100 · Other+6 moreCornell University — $497,183 · EducationCornell Un…THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC — $240,000 · EducationTHE UNIVER…WESTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC — $48,500 · EducationWESTERN CO…+1 more — $20,000 · EducationNATIONAL MARINE LIFE CENTER INC — $272,000 · Arts & CultureTHE SALISBURY ASSOCIATION INC — $199,700 · Arts & Culture+1 more — $10,000 · Arts & CultureMIDDLESEX COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC — $50,000 · PhilanthropyGreat Mountain Forest Corporation — $27,400 · PhilanthropyWESTCHESTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC — $10,000 · PhilanthropyBeaver Institute Inc — $61,500 · Human Services
Animals$3,475,111Environment$2,043,791Other$1,357,143Education$805,683Arts & Culture$481,700Philanthropy$87,400Human Services$61,500

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetDAKIN PIONEER VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INC — $549,000 over 5y, 6.3% of budgetCornell University — $497,183 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetWINCHESTER LAND TRUST INC — $352,000 over 3y, 49% of budgetNORTHWEST CONNECTICUT LAND CONSERVANCY INC — $325,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetLITTLE GUILD OF ST FRANCIS — $304,000 over 5y, 28% of budgetShelter Animals Count — $300,000 over 3y, 25% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS — $275,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetNATIONAL MARINE LIFE CENTER INC — $272,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetNew Hartford Land Trust Inc — $250,000 over 3y, 91% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $250,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC — $240,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNEW HAMPSHIRE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS — $200,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetNORFOLK LAND TRUST INC — $200,000 over 2y, 75% of budgetTHE SALISBURY ASSOCIATION INC — $199,700 over 3y, 8.0% of budgetNew York State Animal Protection Federation Education Fund — $185,000 over 2y, 56% of budgetTHOMAS J OCONNOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND ADOPTION CENTER FOUNDATION INC — $185,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetCONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL INC — $180,000 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetWARREN LAND TRUST INC — $175,000 over 2y, 35% of budgetCornwall Conservation Trust Inc — $172,300 over 2y, 12% of budgetCONNECTICUT HUMANE SOCIETY — $163,000 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetBIDEAWEE INC — $160,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetANIMAL PROTECTIVE FOUNDATION OF SCHENECTADY INC — $140,013 over 4y, 3.1% of budgetNEW ENGLAND FEDERATION OF HUMANE SOCIETIES — $133,000 over 6y, 41% of budgetTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS — $100,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetOPEN DOOR VETERINARY COLLECTIVE — $100,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetBIODIVERSITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE — $96,241 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetTOMPKINS COUNTY SPCA — $75,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetBERKSHIRE HUMANE SOCIETY INC — $75,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetMOHAWK & HUDSON RIVER HUMANE SOCIETY — $70,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetSEA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC — $67,782 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBeaver Institute Inc — $61,500 over 2y, 24% of budgetHOUSATONIC VALLEY ASSOCIATION INC — $60,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetAnimal Rescue Foundation Inc — $60,000 over 2y, 7.8% of budgetFRANKLIN LAND TRUST INC — $60,000 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetTHE ANIMAL HAVEN INC — $59,000 over 1y, 7.5% of budgetNORTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION AND REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL INC — $57,743 over 5y, 20% of budgetLucky Orphans Horse Rescue Inc — $57,598 over 1y, 17% of budgetNEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION INC — $57,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetWestchester Land Trust Inc — $55,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetGATHER NEW HAVEN INC (FORMELY NEW HAVEN LAND TRUST INC) — $50,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetMIDDLESEX COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC — $50,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetSTEEP ROCK ASSOCIATION INC — $50,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND — $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWESTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC — $48,500 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetAlliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs — $39,590 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetTHE WHITE MEMORIAL CONSERVATION CENTER — $33,300 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetKESTREL LAND TRUST — $32,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetGreat Mountain Forest Corporation — $27,400 over 1y, 2.8% of budget
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.

The American Society …Berkshire Taconic Com…The Nature ConservancyNorthwest Connecticut…The Duffield Family F…Aetna Foundation IncThe Connecticut Commu…Petsmart Charities IncIbm International Fou…Ge Aerospace Foundati…Humane World for Anim…Connecticut Land Cons…
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsNY29.3× affinity13 shared granteesties to 8 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals · Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation Inc · The Nature Conservancy · Northwest Connecticut Community Foundation Inc · The Duffield Family Foundation Dba Maddie's Fund · Aetna Foundation Inc · The Connecticut Community Foundation · Petsmart Charities Inc · Ibm International Foundation · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Humane World for Animals Inc · Connecticut Land Conservation Council Inc

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 John T and Jane a Wiederhold Foundation 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 250%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 37%
  • Groundwork Bridgeport Inc — 100% of income from government
  • New England Forestry Foundation Inc — 88% of income from government
  • The Salisbury Association Inc — 54% of income from government
  • Norfolk Land Trust Inc — 49% of income from government
  • Connecticut River Watershed Council Inc — 40% of income from government
  • Housatonic Valley Association Inc — 38% of income from government
  • Save the Sound — 37% of income from government
  • Cornwall Conservation Trust Inc — 30% of income from government
  • Steep Rock Association Inc — 19% of income from government
  • National Marine Life Center Inc — 16% of income from government
  • Gather New Haven Inc (Formely New Haven Land Trust Inc) — 11% of income from government
  • Northwest Connecticut Land Conservancy Inc — 9% of income from government
  • Sea Research Foundation Inc — 8% of income from government
  • Franklin Land Trust Inc — 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
25get no government money at all
13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
3rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The John T and Jane a Wiederhold Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The John T and Jane a Wiederhold 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 76 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines