Skip to content

· Private foundation

Elmer E Naugle Foundation 001531

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$97k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$97k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Philanthropy$279kEducation$113kHuman Services$63kRecreation & Sports$48kArts & Culture$45kFood & Nutrition$35kPublic Safety & Disaster$34kYouth Development$21kOther$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$97,125
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ELMER E NAUGLE FOUNDATION$97,125
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:

Its human-services grants (FY19–23, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%PREGNANCY MINISTRIES: $2k → 9%PREGNANCY MINISTRIES: $2k → 9%PREGNANCY MINISTRIES: $2k → 9%PREGNANCY MINISTRIES: $2k → 9%PREGNANCY MINISTRIES: $2k → 9%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$626k · 26 repeat orgs$17k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +61% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

26 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 25 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

26
5

Total granted

$626k
$17k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+61%
+1%

Still filing today

35%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Youth DevelopmentEducationFood & NutritionHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsEnvironmentOther
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

  • SP
    SHIPPENSBURG PUBLIC LIBRARY
    5× · 2019–2023 · $88k · revenue +23%
  • KP
    KATIE'S PLACE OF SHIPPENSBURG INC
    5× · 2019–2023 · $50k · revenue +242%
  • SH
    SHIPPENSBURG HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC
    5× · 2019–2023 · $45k · revenue +61% · 41% of their budget

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • SA
    SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
    one grant, 2019 · $3k
  • HC
    HOPE CHURCH
    one grant, 2023 · $1k
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
Penn Volunteer Fire Department

All volunteer fire department provides fire and rescue services to the surrounding communities.

—
2
Perkiomen Twp Fire Co No 1

Volunteer fire fighting

Public Safety & Disaster
3
Shippensburg Area Chamber of Commerce

The mission of the shippensburg area chamber of commerce is to provide members with services that promote and support economic vitality as well as develop shippensburg as a great place to live, work, play, visit, and invest.

—
4
Upper Saucon Vol Fire Dept No 1

Fire & Rescue Company

Public Safety & Disaster
5
Schuylkill County Volunteer Firemens Association of the State

To improve volunteer fire service in Schuylkill County

—
6
Shippenville-Elk Twp Volunteer Fire Department

Fire fighting, rescue and other emergency services

Public Safety & Disaster
7
Mt Penn Fire Company

Volunteer fire fighting

Public Safety & Disaster
8
Stewartsville Chamblissburg Vfc Inc

We are a volunteer fire company and EMS service to our community. Founded in 1959, our organizations serves over 4,000 homes.

—
9
Quakertown Volunteer Fire Co No 1

Fire fighting services

Public Safety & Disaster
10
Hereford Volunteer Fire Company Inc

Volunteer fire fighting

Health
11
Seelyville Fire Company

Provides volunteer fire protection and rescue services to the seelyville, pa and surrounding area.

Public Safety & Disaster
12
Penn Forest Township Volunteer Fire Co No 1

Volunteer firefighting and emergency services

Public Safety & Disaster
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Shippensburg Historical Society Inc; the most unlike its peers is Shippensburg Produce and Outreach. 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

10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 31 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
10/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ELMER E NAUGLE FOUNDATION: $184,325 · OtherELMER E NAUGLE FOUNDATIONSHIPPENSBURG HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $44,550 · OtherSHIPPENSBURG HISTORICAL SOCIETY INCSHIPPENSBURG COMMUNITY RESOURCE CO: $37,500 · OtherSHIPPENSBURG COMMUNITY RESOURCE COSHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT F: $21,100 · OtherUNITED WAY OF SHIPPENSBURG: $20,000 · OtherSHIPPENSBURG BOYS GIRLS CLUB: $16,000 · OtherSHIPPENSBURG LITTLE LEAGUE: $15,000 · Other+17 more: $103,425 · Other+17 moreSHIPPENSBURG PUBLIC LIBRARY: $88,325 · EducationSHIPPENSBURG PU…KATIE'S PLACE OF SHIPPENSBURG INC: $50,000 · Youth Development+1 more: $1,000 · Youth DevelopmentSHIPPENSBURG PRODUCE AND OUTREACH: $29,000 · Food & NutritionCUMBERLAND VALLEY RAILS TO TRAILS: $22,000 · EnvironmentPREGNANCY MINISTRIES INC: $7,500 · Human ServicesSHIPPENSURG AQUATIC CLUB: $3,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$441,900Education$88,325Youth Development$51,000Food & Nutrition$29,000Environment$22,000Human Services$7,500Recreation & Sports$3,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSHIPPENSBURG PUBLIC LIBRARY: $88,325 over 5y, 3.1% of budgetKATIE'S PLACE OF SHIPPENSBURG INC: $50,000 over 5y, 8.6% of budgetSHIPPENSBURG HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $44,550 over 5y, 41% of budgetSHIPPENSBURG PRODUCE AND OUTREACH: $29,000 over 5y, 7.0% of budgetCUMBERLAND VALLEY RAILS TO TRAILS: $22,000 over 2y, 44% of budgetVigilant Hose Company No 1: $12,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetPREGNANCY MINISTRIES INC: $7,500 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetCumberland Valley Hose Company No 2: $4,750 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS IN THE HEART OF PA: $1,000 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.

  • Who funds SHIPPENSBURG PUBLIC LIBRARY ↗
  • Who funds KATIE'S PLACE OF SHIPPENSBURG INC ↗
  • Who funds SHIPPENSBURG HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds SHIPPENSBURG PRODUCE AND OUTREACH ↗
  • Who funds CUMBERLAND VALLEY RAILS TO TRAILS ↗
  • Who funds Vigilant Hose Company No 1 ↗
  • Who funds PREGNANCY MINISTRIES INC ↗
  • Who funds Cumberland Valley Hose Company No 2 ↗
  • Who funds SHIPPENSURG AQUATIC CLUB ↗
  • Who funds GIRL SCOUTS IN THE HEART OF PA ↗

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.

Carl L and Glenda T Cramer Charitable FoundationPA17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Carl L and Glenda T Cramer Charitable Foundation · Stewart Alexander Md Fdn Tr Udeed · Naugle Fdn Ta · The United Way of the Shippensburg Area · Hosfeld R and M K Memorial Ta · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Elmer E Naugle Foundation 001531 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Elmer E Naugle Foundation 001531. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Elmer E Naugle Foundation 001531?

    Find your warmest path to Elmer E Naugle Foundation 001531 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.

    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 31 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Elmer E Naugle Foundation 001531’s filings →

    More from the funding graph