Skip to content
Thorne Ecological Institute at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Thorne Ecological Institute

Thorne's mission is to build earth stewardship by connecting youth to nature through joyful, hands-on, place-based environmental education experiences.

$150k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$44k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Environment$1.2MEducation$225kPublic Benefit$118kHuman Services$100kRecreation & Sports$47kCommunity Improvement$43kScience & Tech$42kYouth Development$40kOther$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $138,835, the rows itemized in this filing. The $149,771 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,936 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $132k
$13,125
Median grant
1
States reached
$7.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CAL-WOOD EDUCATION CENTER$43,860
COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE$32,200
YMCA OF BOULDER VALLEY$21,500
WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS$13,125
KEYSTONE SCIENCE SCHOOL$11,000
CITY OF LONGMONT$10,150
GROWING GARDENS$7,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%DESIGNSCAPES COLORADO: $19k → 8%KEYSTONE SCIENCE SCHOOL: $61k → 9%WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS: $35k → 12%COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $58k → 12%KEYSTONE SCIENCE SCHOOL: $61k → 9%WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS: $32k → 12%COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $58k → 12%KEYSTONE SCIENCE SCHOOL: $44k → 9%WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS: $31k → 12%COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $56k → 12%KEYSTONE SCIENCE SCHOOL: $11k → 9%WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS: $13k → 12%COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $43k → 12%WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS: $12k → 12%COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $37k → 12%COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $32k → 12%CAL-WOOD EDUCATION CENTER: $105k → 12%COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $28k → 12%CAL-WOOD EDUCATION CENTER: $67k → 12%COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $23k → 12%CAL-WOOD EDUCATION CENTER: $66k → 12%COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $16k → 12%CAL-WOOD EDUCATION CENTER: $62k → 12%CAL-WOOD EDUCATION CENTER: $56k → 12%CAL-WOOD EDUCATION CENTER: $56k → 12%CAL-WOOD EDUCATION CENTER: $44k → 12%CAL-WOOD EDUCATION CENTER: $38k → 12%CITY OF LAFAYETTE: $118k → 12%YMCA OF BOULDER VALLEY: $43k → 12%YMCA OF BOULDER VALLEY: $32k → 12%YMCA OF BOULDER VALLEY: $24k → 12%YMCA OF BOULDER VALLEY: $22k → 12%CENTAURUS HIGH SCHOOL: $21k → 12%CENTAURUS HIGH SCHOOL: $18k → 12%YMCA OF BOULDER VALLEY: $15k → 12%CENTAURUS HIGH SCHOOL: $14k → 12%BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT: $30k → 12%ECO-CYCLE: $23k → 12%ECO-CYCLE: $21k → 12%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF: $15k → 12%ECO-CYCLE: $14k → 12%ROCKY MOUNTAIN MUSIC INC: $19k → 12%COMMUNITY CYCLES: $14k → 12%COMMUNITY CYCLES: $13k → 12%COMMUNITY CYCLES: $12k → 12%COMMUNITY CYCLES: $12k → 12%COMMUNITY CYCLES: $11k → 12%WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS: $11k → 12%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.
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 11 repeat orgs$199k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +54% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
6

Total granted

$1.7M
$181k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
+12%

Still filing today

82%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementEducationArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • CE
    Cal-Wood Education Center
    8× · 2017–2025 · $494k · revenue +61%
  • CI
    COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $351k · revenue +107%
  • WR
    WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $163k · revenue +52% · 64% of their budget

Funded once

  • CO
    CITY OF LAFAYETTE
    one grant, 2019 · $118k
  • DC
    DESIGNSCAPES COLORADO
    one grant, 2019 · $19k
  • RM
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN MUSIC INC
    one grant, 2021 · $19k
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
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps

Rocky mountain youth corps engages young people in the outdoors, inspiring them to use their strengths and potential to lead healthy, productive lives. we teach responsibility for self, community, and environment through teamwork, service,…

Youth Development
2
Colorado Ag Water Alliance

Works with farmers and ranchers to address water issues around the state impacting agriculture.

Environment
3
Denver Zoological Foundation

Inspiring communities to save wildlife for future generations.

Animals
4
UpRoot Colorado

UpRoot Colorado works to increase nutrition security in Colorado by harvesting and redistributing surplus agricultural crops while supporting the resilience of farmers and creating opportunities for volunteers to learn about and connect…

Food & Nutrition
5
Wildland Awareness and Educational Institute

Wildland Awareness and Educational Institute is a Colorado based conservation organization established to ignite a connection to the outdoors as a means to improve health and for the furtherance of our conservation heritage. Its innovative…

—
6
Western Sustainability Exchange

Advancing sustainability in the western area of the united states through a series of programs and activities designed to promote better ranching practices. a strong focus is to provide ranchers with the information, tools, technical…

Environment
7
Girl Scouts of Colorado

Girl scouts of colorado prepares girls and adults to create unique leadership paths, ignite change, and share a worldwide sisterhood through traditions and new experiences. girl scouts builds girls of courage, confidence, and character,…

Youth Development
8
Sagrada Botanical Gardens

The mission is to reconnect sustainable food and natural medicine practices to the community through the development of community land providing edible and medicinal gardens, organic farm to table food, education and regenerative land…

Environment
9
Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Denver Inc

To provide club members with a safe, supportive, fun, and enriching environment that inspires and empowers them to achieve their greatest potential. bgcmd accomplishes this mission with a foundational social- emotional learning approach…

—
10
Poudre Wilderness Volunteers

Poudre Wilderness Volunteers (PWV) is a Larimer County, Colorado, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1996. The mission of PWV is to assist the Canyon Lakes Ranger District of the United States Forest Service in managing and…

Environment
11
The Colorado Parks Foundation Inc
Recreation & Sports
12
Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado

Motivate and enable people to be active stewards of colorado's natural resources.

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cottonwood Institute; the most unlike its peers is Community Cycles Co Boulder Community Cycles. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 19 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
8/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Cal-Wood Education Center: $494,497 · EnvironmentCal-Wood Education CenterCOTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $350,518 · EnvironmentCOTTONWOOD INSTITUTEWILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS: $163,218 · EnvironmentWILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERSECO-CYCLE INC: $64,063 · EnvironmentECO-CYCLE INC+1 more: $7,000 · EnvironmentYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BOULDER VALLEY: $146,584 · OtherYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIA…CITY OF LAFAYETTE: $118,072 · OtherCITY OF LAFAYETTEBOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT: $88,013 · OtherBOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRIC…CU SCIENCE DISCOVERY: $42,134 · OtherCU SCIENCE DISCOVERYCOLORADO DREAM FOUNDATION: $34,260 · OtherCOLORADO DREAM FOUNDATIONDESIGNSCAPES COLORADO: $19,300 · OtherROCKY MOUNTAIN MUSIC INC: $18,500 · Other+2 more: $15,198 · OtherTHE KEYSTONE SCIENCE SCHOOL INC: $177,590 · EducationTHE KEYSTO…COMMUNITY CYCLES CO BOULDER COMMUNITY CYCLES: $68,574 · Community ImprovementTCFSO: $14,516 · Community ImprovementEcoArts Connections: $49,926 · Arts & CultureGROWE FOUNDATION: $5,996 · Youth Development
Environment$1,079,296Other$482,061Education$177,590Community Improvement$83,090Arts & Culture$49,926Youth Development$5,996

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCal-Wood Education Center: $494,497 over 8y, 7.0% of budgetCOTTONWOOD INSTITUTE: $350,518 over 9y, 8.3% of budgetTHE KEYSTONE SCIENCE SCHOOL INC: $177,590 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetWILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS: $163,218 over 9y, 64% of budgetYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BOULDER VALLEY: $146,584 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY CYCLES CO BOULDER COMMUNITY CYCLES: $68,574 over 6y, 1.5% of budgetECO-CYCLE INC: $64,063 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetEcoArts Connections: $49,926 over 6y, 13% of budgetCOLORADO DREAM FOUNDATION: $34,260 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetTCFSO: $14,516 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetGROWING GARDENS OF BOULDER COUNTY: $7,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetGROWE FOUNDATION: $5,996 over 1y, 3.5% 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.

  • Who funds Cal-Wood Education Center ↗
  • Who funds COTTONWOOD INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds THE KEYSTONE SCIENCE SCHOOL INC ↗
  • Who funds WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS ↗
  • Who funds YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BOULDER VALLEY ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY CYCLES CO BOULDER COMMUNITY CYCLES ↗
  • Who funds ECO-CYCLE INC ↗
  • Who funds EcoArts Connections ↗
  • Who funds COLORADO DREAM FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TCFSO ↗
  • Who funds GROWING GARDENS OF BOULDER COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds GROWE FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Community Foundation …The Denver FoundationColorado Gives Founda…Gr's FoundationAEC TrustThe Colorado Health F…PatagoniaorgXcel Energy FoundationInnovo FoundationRose Community Founda…American Online Givin…Vanguard Charitable E…
Community Foundation Boulder CountyCO30× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation Boulder County · The Denver Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Gr's Foundation · AEC Trust · The Colorado Health Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Xcel Energy Foundation · Innovo Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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 Thorne Ecological Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Thorne Ecological Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 19 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Thorne Ecological Institute’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