Skip to content

· Private foundation

Beech Hill Foundation Inc

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$2k
Granted FY2020
7
Grants FY2020
4
States reached
$1k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Beech Hill Foundation Inc’s FY2022 grant dollars went to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2022 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2020, the last year Beech Hill Foundation Inc named its own grantees at scale: 7 organizations, $2k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

7
’20
0
’21
0
’22

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2022.

Philanthropy$50kEnvironment$1kArts & Culture$500Food & Nutrition$300International$300Civil Rights$300
02FY2020 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$300
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY$1,000
THOREAU SOCIETY$500
ACLU FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS$300
DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS USA$300
REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK$100
SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY$100
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY$100
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 (FY20–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, 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%THOREAU SOCIETY: $500 → 8%FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $47k → 16%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $100 → 8%REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $100 → 9%SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $100 → 13%DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS USA: $300 → 17%FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $3k → 16%ACLU FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS: $300 → 16%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 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
Food Forward Inc

Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.

Food & Nutrition
2
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
3
Second Harvest North Central Food Bank

Engaging the community to end hunger

—
4
Second Harvest Heartland

Second harvest heartland's mission is to end hunger together. in partnership with more than 1,000 food shelves and hunger-relief programs in minnesota and western wisconsin, we provided 145 million meals to neighbors last year.

Food & Nutrition
5
San Francisco Food Bank

To end hunger in san francisco and marin counties by soliciting food donations nationally, distributing this food to qualifying public service agencies and neighborhood pantries, advocating for improved government food programs, and…

—
6
California Association of Food Banks

California association of food banks (cafb) is a non-profit public benefit corporation located in oakland, california. together with its 41-member foodbanks, cafb is the largest charitable hunger-relief and anti-hunger leader in the state.…

Food & Nutrition
7
Foodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc

To end hunger and transform the health of our community by providing nourishment to those in need by acquiring and distributing safe nutritious food via local agencies and by providing education to solve hunger and nutritional problems in…

Food & Nutrition
8
United Food Bank

United Food Bank unites communities to alleviate hunger.

Food & Nutrition
9
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

The organization's mission is to mobilize resources to fight hunger in our community. to fulfill its mission, the food bank:* sources and acquires nutritious food and other products and distribute them to people experiencing nutrition…

—
10
Feeding San Diego

On a mission to connect every person facing hunger with nutritious meals by maximizing food rescue. through direct service and community partnerships, feeding san diego provides more than 26 million meals each year to children, families,…

Food & Nutrition
11
Second Harvest Foodbank of Southern Wi

Second harvest foodbank exists to end hunger in southwestern wisconsin.

Food & Nutrition
12
Food Bank Association of New York State

The mission of feeding new york state is to lead a unified effort for a hunger-free state of new york. the mission of food banking is to obtain food and deliver it to emergency food programs. feeding new york state works to end hunger by…

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Redwood Empire Food Bank; the most unlike its peers is Center for Biological Diversity Inc. 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

8 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $50,279 · Community ImprovementFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUNDCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $1,000 · AnimalsTHE THOREAU SOCIETY INC: $500 · Arts & CultureACLU FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $300 · Civil RightsMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $300 · InternationalSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $100 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $100 · Food & NutritionREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $100 · Food & Nutrition
Community Improvement$50,279Animals$1,000Arts & Culture$500Civil Rights$300International$300Food & Nutrition$300

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $50,279 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE THOREAU SOCIETY INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetACLU FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $100 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Beech Hill Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Beech Hill Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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 8 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Beech Hill’s filings →

    More from the funding graph