Skip to content
The Lawrence Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

The Lawrence Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$190k
Granted FY2024still arriving
18
Grants FY2024still arriving
7
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$490kEducation$91kFood & Nutrition$77kHuman Services$75kHealth$72kAnimals$64kInternational$55kCrime & Legal$42kOther$0
02FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 18 grants below total $97,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $190,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $93,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k16 grants · $77k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
$5,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$2.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UCLA Foundation$10,000
NRDC$10,000
(AAAS) American Association for the Advancement of Science$5,000
Friends Place on Capitol Hill$5,000
Green Corp$5,000
Hillisdes$5,000
Yampa Valley Sustainable Council$5,000
350 Colorado$5,000
Clothes to Kids of Denver, Inc.$5,000
Coral Reef Alliance$5,000
Earth Law Center$5,000
Santa Monica Mountains Fund$5,000
Southern Environmental Law Center$5,000
World Wildlife Fund$5,000
ALMA Backyard Farms$5,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–20, $88k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 89% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Engineers for a Sustainable World: $5k → 11%Tides: $5k → 10%Angels Foster Family Network: $5k → 11%TRI-LAKES CARES: $5k → 9%BRIDGE HOUSE: $5k → 12%Ocean Park Community Center: $3k → 14%Clayton Dabney for Kids with Cancer: $5k → 14%TRI-LAKES CARES: $5k → 9%Clayton Dabney for Kids with Cancer: $5k → 14%Womenspace Inc: $5k → 15%Clothes to Kids of Denver: $5k → 12%HOMELESS NOT TOOTHLESS: $5k → 14%Toberman Neighborhood Center: $5k → 14%PROYECTO PASTORAL: $5k → 14%PROYECTO PASTORAL: $5k → 14%SAFE PLACE FOR YOUTH: $5k → 14%MEALS ON WHEELS WEST: $5k → 14%CHILDREN'S BUREAU OF SOUTHERN CALIF: $5k → 14%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

VT
NH
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
NY
MA
OR
IN
PA
NJ
CT
CA
CO
MO
KY
VA
AZ
TN
DC
HI
TX
FL
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 9% of The Lawrence Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The Lawrence Foundationlessmore 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.

55%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$570k · 37 repeat orgs$469k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +67% since the first grant, against +41% for those funded once.

37 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 30 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

37
96

Total granted

$570k
$425k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+67%
+41%

Still filing today

76%
70%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 49% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $44k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’24
EnvironmentHuman ServicesAnimalsFood & NutritionEducationHealthOther
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

  • WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC
    5× · 2018–2024 · $55k · revenue +43%
  • YV
    YAMPA VALLEY SUSTAINABILITY COUNCIL
    5× · 2017–2021 · $30k · revenue +386%
  • EL
    ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE
    5× · 2017–2024 · $28k · revenue +277%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • PP
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ROCKY MOUNTAI
    one grant, 2019 · $10k
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
Friends of the Earth

Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…

Environment
2
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
3
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
4
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
5
Wildlife Conservation Network Inc

Connect conservationists and supporters, deploy resources to the field, provide conservationists with tools and support they need to succeed.

Animals
6
Wildaid Inc

Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.

Animals
7
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
8
Asociacion Interamericana Para La Defensa Del Ambiente

To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.

Crime & Legal
9
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
10
Oceana Inc

To advocate for policy changes by governments and corporations in order to preserve ocean life and return the oceans to their former abundance.

Environment
11
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
12
Wildearth Guardians

Wildearth guardians works to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the american west.

Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Clean the World Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Loyalty Foundation. 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

106 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. 106 of the 147 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
33
Early backer (in before they grew)
104/106
Grantees still filing
81/106
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $50,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYUCLA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING APP SCI: $30,000 · OtherENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE: $28,000 · OtherENVIRONMENT CA RESEARCH POLICY CENT: $20,000 · OtherAmerican Assoc Advancement of Scien: $20,000 · OtherCHILDREN'S ORGAN TRANSPLANT ASSOCIA: $20,000 · OtherFCNL EDUCATION FUND: $20,000 · Other+74 more: $409,000 · Other+74 moreWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $55,000 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INCYAMPA VALLEY SUSTAINABILITY COUNCIL: $30,000 · EnvironmentYAMPA VALLEY SUSTAINABILI…THE CORAL REEF ALLIANCE: $20,000 · EnvironmentTHE CORAL REEF ALLIANCE350 COLORADO: $18,000 · Environment350 COLORADONATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $15,000 · EnvironmentNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE…PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES CENTER: $15,000 · EnvironmentPACIFIC ENVIRONMENT AND R…GREEN CORPS INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentEARTH ECONOMICS: $10,000 · EnvironmentPesticide Action Network North America: $10,000 · EnvironmentEarth Island Institute Inc: $9,000 · Environment+14 more: $61,000 · Environment+14 moreALL FOR KIDS ORGANIZATION: $10,000 · Human ServicesALL FOR K…TRI-LAKES CARES: $10,000 · Human ServicesTRI-LAKES…CLAYTON DABNEY FOR KIDS WITH CANCER: $10,000 · Human ServicesCLAYTON D…CLOTHES TO KIDS OF DENVER INC: $10,000 · Human ServicesCLOTHES T…Proyecto Pastoral: $10,000 · Human ServicesProyecto …ANGELS FOSTER FAMILY AGENCY: $5,000 · Human ServicesBridge House: $5,000 · Human ServicesTIDES INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesENGINEERS FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD: $5,000 · Human ServicesTOBERMAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesMEALS ON WHEELS WEST: $5,000 · Human ServicesHOMELESS NOT TOOTHLESS: $5,000 · Human ServicesWOMENSPACE: $5,000 · Human ServicesSAFE PLACE FOR YOUTH INC: $5,000 · Human Services+1 more: $2,500 · Human ServicesFRIENDS OF THE SEA LIONS INC DBA PACIFIC MARINE MAMMAL CENTER: $15,000 · AnimalsINTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST: $15,000 · AnimalsHumane World for Animals International: $7,000 · AnimalsBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $5,000 · AnimalsOPERATION DELTA DOG INC: $5,000 · AnimalsTHE INSTITUTE FOR BIRD POPULATIONS: $4,000 · AnimalsKINKATOPIA INC: $3,000 · AnimalsEARTH LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL: $2,500 · AnimalsTurtles Fly Too Inc: $2,500 · AnimalsUCLA FOUNDATION: $30,000 · EducationMY STUFF BAGS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationTHE SANTA MONICA COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $5,000 · EducationBOOKS IN HOMES USA INC: $5,000 · EducationPRESIDENT-BOARD OF TRUSTEES SANTA CLARA COLLEGE: $5,000 · EducationACCESS BOOKS: $2,500 · Education+1 more: $1,000 · EducationFOOD FINDERS INC: $17,000 · Food & NutritionBALANCED INC: $5,000 · Food & NutritionSPOONFULS: $5,000 · Food & NutritionALMA BACKYARD FARM: $5,000 · Food & NutritionFOOD FORWARD INC: $5,000 · Food & NutritionUpcycled Food Foundation: $5,000 · Food & NutritionWORLD VISION INC: $15,000 · InternationalMICROLOAN FOUNDATION USA: $9,000 · InternationalMercy Ships International: $5,000 · InternationalCLEAN THE WORLD FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · InternationalMARALLIANCE: $3,000 · International
Other$597,000Environment$253,000Human Services$97,500Animals$59,000Education$58,500Food & Nutrition$42,000International$37,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $55,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $50,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetYAMPA VALLEY SUSTAINABILITY COUNCIL: $30,000 over 5y, 3.5% of budgetUCLA FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE: $28,000 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetFCNL EDUCATION FUND: $20,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CORAL REEF ALLIANCE: $20,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budget350 COLORADO: $18,000 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetFOOD FINDERS INC: $17,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSANDY HOOK PROMISE FOUNDATION: $16,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE SEA LIONS INC DBA PACIFIC MARINE MAMMAL CENTER: $15,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetORGANIC FARMING RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST: $15,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetWORLD VISION INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPACIFIC ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES CENTER: $15,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetGALAPAGOS CONSERVANCY INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetGREEN CORPS INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetALL FOR KIDS ORGANIZATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TECH INTERACTIVE: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSIGHTSAVERS INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTRI-LAKES CARES: $10,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCLAYTON DABNEY FOR KIDS WITH CANCER: $10,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCLOTHES TO KIDS OF DENVER INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetEARTH ECONOMICS: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSEACOLOGY: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetProyecto Pastoral: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMY STUFF BAGS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCAMP THORPE INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetEarth Island Institute Inc: $9,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMICROLOAN FOUNDATION USA: $9,000 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetHumane World for Animals International: $7,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTEEN CANCER AMERICA INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetMIGRATION RESOURCE CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetBALANCED INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetTHE SANTA MONICA COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetANGELS FOSTER FAMILY AGENCY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetPROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES FOUNDATION SAN FERNANDO & SANTA CLARITA VALLEYS SA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSPOONFULS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOTA - Children's Organ Transplant Association: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHEAL THE BAY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetInternational Living Future Institute: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES NY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAMERICAN RIVERS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPUBLIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

PatagoniaorgThe Marisla FoundationCalifornia Community …The Rose Hills Founda…Orange County Communi…The Ralph M Parsons F…The Annenberg Foundat…Silicon Valley Commun…The Ahmanson Foundati…Clif Family FoundationGive Lively Foundatio…Baby2baby
PatagoniaorgCA22.8× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · The Marisla Foundation · California Community Foundation · The Rose Hills Foundation · Orange County Community Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Ahmanson Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · Give Lively Foundation Inc · Baby2baby

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 60%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Womenspace: 62% of income from government
  • Family Promise Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Sandy Hook Promise Foundation: 0% of income from government
  • Clean the World Foundation Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
6get no government money at all
22report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely 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.

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 147 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $173k of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Lawrence’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