· Public charity
E Kneale Dockstader Foundation
To promote and engage in charitable, scientific, and educational activities.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $103,363 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $134,963 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $31,600 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $86k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BRANDYWINE RED CLAY ALLIANCE | $31,463 |
| KENNETT AREA PARK AUTHORITY | $30,000 |
| THE GARAGE COMMUNITY & YOUTH CENTER | $15,000 |
| STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER | $10,000 |
| OCTORARA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT | $9,400 |
| WHITE CLAY WATERSHED ASSOCIATION | $7,500 |
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 (FY24–24, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 5%. 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +99% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 1 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, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k 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
- BRBRANDYWINE RED CLAY ALLIANCE7× · 2019–2025 · $139k · revenue +169%
- BCBrandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art5× · 2018–2024 · $79k · revenue +289%
- SWSTROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER4× · 2021–2025 · $50k · revenue +4%
Funded once
- HEHILLENDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLone grant, 2017 · $30k
- KAKENNETT AREA PARK AND RECREATION BOARDone grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue -56%
- ABAVONDALE BOROUGHone grant, 2024 · $13k
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 conserve and steward lands and waters of Westmoreland County that harbor ecological, cultural or recreational qualities to offer a healthier and more sustainable future for all.
To conserve and restore the natural resources through land conservation, water resources stewardship and environmental outreach across central pennsylvania.
To promote, for the benefit of the general public, the conservation of land and water natural resources principally in, but not limited to, the town of kent, connecticut.
The mission of Central Pennsylvania Conservancy (CPC) is to acquire, preserve, and protect local land and natural resources in a five-county, South-Central PA region. Our vision is to create a local network of permanently protected and…
Protecting, enhancing and conserving open spaces encompassing meadows, woodlands, wetlands, and waterways in the town of wilton ct.
Kennebunk Land Trust's mission is to permanently conserve and steward land to benefit natural and human communities.
The westmoreland conservancy is an accredited non-profit land trust located in murrysville about 20 miles east of pittsburgh in westmoreland county. the organization was founded in 1991, and has always been run by community volunteers. the…
Kestrel land trust inc. conserves and cares for forests, farms, and riverways in the connecticut river valley of western massachusetts, while nurturing an enduring love of the land
The primary mission of the Westchester Land Trust is to conserve, maintain and enhance the natural environment and resources of Westchester County and eastern Putnam County. The Trust acquires interests in land exhibiting important natural…
Glen foerd stewards an eclectic riverfront estate for the enjoyment and educational benefit of the community. drawing from the estate's architecture, art, material culture, and history-as well as its gardens and waterways-glen foerd…
The mission of the Kennebec Estuary Land Trust is to conserve, restore, and instill appreciation of the land and water resources of the Kennebec Estuary for the benefit of today's communities and future generations.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Brandywine Red Clay Alliance and the most unlike its peers is Unionville-Chadds Ford School District Pto. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 26 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 BRANDYWINE RED CLAY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds THE LAND CONSERVANCY FOR SOUTHERN CHESTER COUNTY ↗
- Who funds Brandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art ↗
- Who funds Natural Lands Trust Inc ↗
- Who funds STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE GARAGE COMMUNITY & YOUTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds WHITE CLAY WATERSHED ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds SILO WORKS ↗
- Who funds KENNETT AREA PARK AND RECREATION BOARD ↗
- Who funds UNIONVILLE-CHADDS FORD SCHOOL DISTRICT PTO ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS BOARDING HOME OF WESTERN QUARTERLY MEETING ↗
- Who funds KENNETT LIBRARY ↗
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: Chester County Community Foundation · Cabot-Kjellerup Foundation · Delaware Community Foundation Inc · Ccres · The William Penn Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 E Kneale Dockstader 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 E Kneale Dockstader Foundation?
Find your warmest path to E Kneale Dockstader 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.