· Private foundation
Eaglemere Foundation Inc
Its FY2024 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k8 grants · $38k
- $10k–50k21 grants · $545k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $431k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE NATURE CONSERVANCY | $105,203 |
| EARTH JUSTICE | $100,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND | $100,000 |
| GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION | $65,520 |
| WORLD WILDLIFE FUND | $60,000 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS | $49,997 |
| LEGADO INITIATIVE | $45,527 |
| OXFAM AMERICA | $40,102 |
| ADVENTURER & SCIENTISTS FOR CONSERVATION | $35,315 |
| MANOMET CENTER FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCES | $35,000 |
| ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION | $32,290 |
| NORTH AND SOUTH RIVERS WATERSHED TRUST | $30,230 |
| MYSTIC RIVER WATHERSHED ASSOCIATION | $30,000 |
| ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE | $30,000 |
| UNLOCKING COMMUNITIES | $25,495 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 68% of your 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.
43 repeat relationships — 26 still active in FY2024, 17 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $94k 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
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC8× · 2017–2024 · $936k · revenue +62%
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED8× · 2017–2024 · $750k · revenue +202%
EARTHJUSTICE8× · 2017–2024 · $575k · revenue +82%
Funded once
- MIMEDIA IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTone grant, 2021 · $6k
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.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
The wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
The adirondack council ensures the ecological integrity (clean water and air, wildlife habitat, etc.), wild character (solitude, scenic beauty, etc.), and vibrant communities of new york's six-million-acre adirondack park. the adirondack…
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mighty Earth Inc and the most unlike its peers is Unlocking Communities Inc. 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 42 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
35 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. 35 of the 52 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 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH & SOUTH RIVERS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds ADVENTURERS AND SCIENTISTS FOR CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds LEGADO INC ↗
- Who funds NOBLE AND GREENOUGH SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL GREENGRANTS FUND ↗
- Who funds Unlocking Communities Inc ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds TERRAPRAXIS INC ↗
- Who funds Lakes Region Conservation Trust ↗
- Who funds YELLOWSTONE FOREVER ↗
- Who funds ECOFLIGHT ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE OF BOSTON ↗
- Who funds LABYRINTH TRAINING CENTER ↗
- Who funds SITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds MIGHTY EARTH INC ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY INC ↗
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: Patagoniaorg · Boston Foundation Inc · The Nature Conservancy · New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · Fidelity Foundation · The Ayco Charitable Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc
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 Eaglemere Foundation Inc 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Mystic River Watershed Association Inc — 18% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Charles River Watershed Association Inc — 8% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Amherst College Trustees — 0% of income from government
- Animal Rescue League of Boston — 0% of income from government
- Ceres Inc — 0% of income from government
- Milton Academy — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Eaglemere Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Eaglemere Foundation Inc 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.