Skip to content
Hendricksfelton Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Hendricksfelton Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$19k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$19k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$122kEnvironment$18kHuman Services$8kHousing & Shelter$6kArts & Culture$5kPhilanthropy$5kFood & Nutrition$4kPublic Safety & Disaster$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$18,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$246k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT DARTMOUTH$18,500
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 (FY20–20, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%GRAFTON COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL: $5k → 10%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.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$127k · 5 repeat orgs$45k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +34% since the first grant, against +19% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
11

Total granted

$127k
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+19%

Still filing today

80%
73%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentHealthInternationalCrime & LegalHousing & ShelterArts & CultureOther
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

  • CE
    COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
    4× · 2019–2024 · $7k · revenue +93%
  • CH
    COVER HOME REPAIR INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $6k · revenue +4%
  • ED
    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER
    3× · 2019–2024 · $5k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • EH
    EVERGREENHEALTH HOSPICE SERVICES
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • UV
    Upper Valley Arts
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue -26%
  • GC
    Grafton County Senior Citizens Council Inc
    one grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue +14%
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
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
2
Upper Saco Valley Land Trust

The Organization works with local landowners to permanently protect natural land and waters that define its community and enrich the quality of life by purchasing, managing, negotiating and developing conservations easements in the Upper…

Food & Nutrition
3
Upper Valley Humane Society Inc

UVHS improves quality of life for people and pets through an innovative animal shelter and adoption center and through services that reduce suffering, support wellness, and foster compassion.

Animals
4
Conservation Law Foundation Inc

Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…

Environment
5
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
6
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
7
United Food Bank

United Food Bank unites communities to alleviate hunger.

Food & Nutrition
8
Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board

The mission of the UCSRB is to restore viable and sustainable populations of salmon steelhead and other at-risk species through collaborative economically sensitive efforts combined resources and wise resource management of the Upper…

Animals
9
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
10
Extrafood

Food Rescue - The Organization rescues excess fresh food from Bay Area businesses, schools and non-profits and immediately delivers the food to safety net partners - such as senior housing centers, after-school programs, and homeless…

Food & Nutrition
11
Save Barnegat Bay Inc

Our mission is to restore and protect barnegat bay and its ecosystem. we advance our mission by being a strong and independent voice for the bay throughout the watershed, including all of ocean and part of monmouth counties. we do this…

Environment
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Environmental Council; the most unlike its peers is Upper Valley Arts. 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

12 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. 12 of the 16 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT DARTMOUTH: $106,000 · OtherCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT DARTMOUTHEVERGREENHEALTH HOSPICE SERVICES: $10,000 · OtherEVERGREENHEALTH HOSPICE SERVICESPIKE PLACE FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Other+5 more: $13,500 · Other+5 moreCOMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: $6,750 · EnvironmentSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE: $4,000 · EnvironmentPEARLS MEMORY BABIES INC: $4,000 · HealthNATIONAL DISASTER SEARCH DOG FOUNDATION: $2,000 · HealthCOVER HOME REPAIR INC: $5,500 · Housing & ShelterUpper Valley Arts: $5,000 · Arts & CultureGrafton County Senior Citizens Council Inc: $5,000 · Human ServicesENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER: $4,750 · Crime & Legal
Other$134,500Environment$10,750Health$6,000Housing & Shelter$5,500Arts & Culture$5,000Human Services$5,000Crime & Legal$4,750

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: $6,750 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetCOVER HOME REPAIR INC: $5,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetUpper Valley Arts: $5,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetGrafton County Senior Citizens Council Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER: $4,750 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFoodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUPPER VALLEY HAVEN: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITE TO LIGHT INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetNATIONAL DISASTER SEARCH DOG FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOPERATION SMILE INC: $2,000 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.

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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO6.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Hendricksfelton Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hendricksfelton Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 38%
  • Upper Valley Haven: 38% of income from government
  • Cover Home Repair Inc: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
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 16 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 Hendricksfelton’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home