· Private foundation
The Noom Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k8 grants · $32k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $130k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $150k
- $250k+1 grant · $500k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CLEVELAND ROWING FOUNDATION | $500,000 |
| THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND | $100,000 |
| HARVARD UNIVERSITY | $50,000 |
| AMERICAN RIVERS | $25,000 |
| AMALGAMATED CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC | $20,000 |
| SQUAM LAKES CONSERVATION SOCIETY | $15,000 |
| THE SCULPTURE CENTER | $15,000 |
| OHIO VOICE | $15,000 |
| STATE DEMOCRACY PROJECT | $15,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $12,500 |
| AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND | $12,500 |
| THE GROWHAUS | $7,500 |
| BIG CITY MOUNTAINEERS | $7,500 |
| BIKE CLEVELAND | $5,000 |
| COLORADO OPEN LANDS | $4,000 |
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 (FY19–20, $23k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 96% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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 +31% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
25 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 27% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $539k 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
THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND6× · 2018–2025 · $273k · revenue +119%- SLSQUAM LAKES CONSERVATION SOCIETY7× · 2018–2025 · $115k · revenue +23%
RAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVANCY4× · 2018–2024 · $96k · revenue +4%
Funded once
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INCone grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue 0%- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $25k
- GIGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INCone grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue 0%
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
Colorado center on law and policy is an antipoverty organization advancing the rights of every coloradan.
See schedule othe democracy collaborative was established in 2000 to advance understanding of democracy for the 21st century and to promote emerging strategies and innovations in community development that enhance democratic life. in…
Greater yellowstone coalition works with all people to protect the lands, waters, and wildlife of the greater yellowstone ecosystem, now and for future generations.
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
Conservation legacy engages future leaders who protect, restore, and enhance our nation's lands through community-based service.in 2024, conservation legacy engaged 2,524 participants who completed over 1.5 million service hours on public…
To effectively and efficiently mitigate risks to the reliability and security of the western interconnection's bulk power system.
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…
Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Colorado Education Fund and the most unlike its peers is Instituto Lab. 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.
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 33 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
56 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. 56 of the 70 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 CLEVELAND ROWING FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds SQUAM LAKES CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds RAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds RECOVERY RESOURCES ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds MAROON ARTS GROUP ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE INC ↗
- Who funds OHIO VOICE ↗
- Who funds BIG CITY MOUNTAINEERS ↗
- Who funds CHARITIES AID FOUNDATION AMERICA ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND ↗
- Who funds EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC ↗
- Who funds INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK ↗
- Who funds GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds THE SCULPTURE CENTER ↗
- Who funds STATE DEMOCRACY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds THE GROWHAUS ↗
- Who funds GREATER CLEVELAND FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds The Centers for Families and Children ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS ↗
- Who funds COLORADO OPEN LANDS ↗
- Who funds SQUAM LAKES ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Alliance for Global Justice Corp ↗
- Who funds BIKE CLEVELAND ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds Western Pennsylvania Fund for Choic ↗
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.
Open a dossier: The Cleveland Foundation · The George Gund Foundation · The Char and Chuck Fowler Family Foundation · The Lozick Family Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Tides Foundation · Community Shares of Colorado Inc · Higley Fund of the Cleveland Foundation · Dominion Energy Charitable Foundation · The Reinberger Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Jewish Federation of Cleveland
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 Noom 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Appalachian Mountain Club — 1% of income from government
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.