· Private foundation
Arthur & Edith Pearson Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 86% of ARTHUR & EDITH PEARSON FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k7 grants · $31k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $285k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $102k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY | $52,000 |
| BOTTINEAU AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| THEODORE ROOSEVELT MEDORA FOUNDATION | $35,000 |
| WESTHOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP | $30,000 |
| NEWBURG UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT | $30,000 |
| WESTHOPE PUBLIC SCHOOL | $29,000 |
| WESTERN NORTH DAKOTA HONOR FLIGHT | $25,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL MUSIC CAMP | $23,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MARY | $20,000 |
| NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| CAPITAL CITY YOUNG GUNS INC | $15,000 |
| MOHALL PUBLIC SCHOOL | $15,000 |
| BSC FOUNDATION AND ALUMNI ASSOCIATION | $12,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| ANTLER OUTLAWS | $10,000 |
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 (FY21–21, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% 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.
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.
27 repeat relationships — 20 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 2 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
- TRTheodore Roosevelt Medora Foundation9× · 2017–2025 · $325k · revenue +154%
- IMINTERNATIONAL MUSIC CAMP4× · 2022–2025 · $88k · revenue +19%
- CCCAPITAL CITY YOUNG GUNS5× · 2021–2025 · $55k · revenue +49%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $50k
- BWBOTTINEAU WINTER PARK INCgraduatedone grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue +40%
- IPINTERNATIONAL PEACE GARDENSone grant, 2020 · $42k
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.
To promote the conservation of natural resources in the state of north dakota
The association works to promote member credit unions as being safe and sound institutions for insured deposits, responsible lending, and the best place for consumers to receive financial services.
Provide assistance to low income individuals through the community action self sufficiency programs and energy conservation assistance through the agency's weatherization program.
YFC reaches young people everywhere, together with the local church and other likeminded partners to raise up followers of Jesus who lead by their godliness in lifestyle, devotion for sharing the love of Christ and commitment to social…
To maintain national leadership in entrepreneur outreach and education, and become the leader in tech entrepreneurship in rural America.
To provide higher education opportunities, at the community college level, including vocational and technical training. as a tribal community college, we emphasize the teaching and learning of dakota culture and language toward the…
Children's mental health
Building enduring relationships that maximize advocacy and philanthropy to support North Dakota State University.
Promote economic development in the mitchell, sd area
The purpose of south dakota youth hunting adventures is to instill in young people, a lifelong enthusiasm and respect for the outdoors, hunting and landowners, teach hunter safety, ethics, wildlife and habitat conservation by providing a…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Dakota Community Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Denver Junior Golf. 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 23 years old; the field is 26. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 8% 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.
17 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. 17 of the 56 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 Theodore Roosevelt Medora Foundation ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL MUSIC CAMP ↗
- Who funds ANTLER OUTLAWS ↗
- Who funds CAPITAL CITY YOUNG GUNS ↗
- Who funds BOTTINEAU WINTER PARK INC ↗
- Who funds University of Mary ↗
- Who funds NORTH DAKOTA ADULT & TEEN CHALLENGE ↗
- Who funds MINDS MATTER COLORADO INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF MINOT INC ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL DAKOTA HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Delta Waterfowl Foundation ↗
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: Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota Caring Foundation · Ichf Foundation · Midcontinent Foundation · North Dakota Community Foundation · The Tom and Frances Leach Foundation · Inspiritus Community Health Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · Northwest North Dakota Community Foundation Inc · Minot Community Foundation · Thrivent Financial for Lutherans · Otto Bremer Trust · Bnsf Railway 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 organization Arthur & Edith Pearson 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Arthur & Edith Pearson Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Arthur & Edith Pearson 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.