· Private foundation
Henry M Blackmer Foundation Inc
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.
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k6 grants · $26k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $59k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $95k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Lowcountry Land Trust | $95,000 |
| South Carolina Environmental Law Project | $19,000 |
| Coastal Conservation League | $10,000 |
| Grace Church Cathedral | $10,000 |
| Coastal Community Foundation | $10,000 |
| Episcopal Church HomeBishop Gadsden | $10,000 |
| Southern Environmental Law Center | $8,000 |
| Cherry Hills Land Preserve | $5,000 |
| Charleston Area Therapeutic Riding | $5,000 |
| Roper St Francis Foundation | $4,000 |
| Charleston Moves | $2,000 |
| Open Space Institute | $2,000 |
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 14% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +113% since the first grant, against -17% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 3 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, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
- LLLOWCOUNTRY LAND TRUST INC9× · 2017–2025 · $351k · revenue +125%
- CACHARLESTON AREA THERAPEUTIC RIDING INC9× · 2017–2025 · $150k · revenue +1%
- SCSOUTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT INC9× · 2017–2025 · $105k · revenue +157%
Funded once
- LBLORD BERKELEY CONSERVATION TRUSTone grant, 2019 · $500 · revenue -17%
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.
The organization's primary exempt purpose is acquiring and protecting lands of regional and national conservation and/or historic significance in the coastal plain of north carolina.
Recognizing that a healthy environment is critical to the well-being and survival of all living things, new jersey conservation foundation is devoted to preserving land and protecting natural resources throughout new jersey's (continued on…
Triangle land conservancy (tlc) strives to create a healthier and more vibrant triangle region by safeguarding clean water, protecting natural habitats, supporting local farms, and connecting people with nature through land protection and…
The mission of the coalition to restore coastal louisiana (crcl) is to unite people in action to achieve a thriving, sustainable louisiana coast for all.
We bring science, policy, and proven solutions directly to communities working to restore the integrity and natural connectivity of the landscapes in which they live. (see schedule o)
Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.
Preservation of essex county virginia's rural characteristics, its scenic lands, natural resources, and historic structures.
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,…
The schs mission is to expand, preserve, and make accessible our invaluable collection, and to encourage interest and pride in the rich history of our state.
The mission of the upper savannah land trust is to encourage and support conservation of natural and scenic lands, farms, forests, waterways, and open spaces on our eight-county area: abbeville, anderson, edgefield, greenwood, laurens,…
To conserve and protect the natural and historic land and water resources of virginia's capital region for the benefit of current and future generations.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lowcountry Land Trust Inc and the most unlike its peers is Charleston Area Therapeutic Riding Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 22 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 LOWCOUNTRY LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds CHARLESTON AREA THERAPEUTIC RIDING INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds COASTAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC ↗
- Who funds Roper St Francis Foundation ↗
- Who funds CHARLESTON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds Charleston Moves ↗
- Who funds The Preservation Society of Charleston Inc ↗
- Who funds OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHERRY HILLS LAND PRESERVE INC ↗
- Who funds LORD BERKELEY CONSERVATION TRUST ↗
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: Coastal Community Foundation of South Carolina Inc · Post and Courier Foundation · Henry & Sylvia Yaschik Foundation Inc · The Joanna Foundation · Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation · Atlantic Services of Charleston Cha · Pathfinder Foundation Inc · Speedwell Foundation · The Ceres Foundation Inc · Dominion Energy Charitable Foundation · The Ayco Charitable Foundation · American Endowment 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 Henry M Blackmer 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 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 Henry M Blackmer Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Henry M Blackmer 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.