· Private foundation
Lynn W and Timothy W Peters Family 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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 55% of LYNN W AND TIMOTHY W PETERS FAMILY FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ST ANDREWS SCHOOL | $7,500 |
| LANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH FOUNDATION | $1,500 |
| SULTANA EDUCATION FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| SHORE RIVERS | $1,000 |
| RADCLIFFE CREEK SCHOOL | $500 |
| UNITED WAY OF KENT COUNTY | $500 |
| POWER PACKS PROJECT | $500 |
| SCHREIBER CENTER FOR PEDIATRIC DEVELOPMENT | $400 |
| LANCASTER CONSERVANCY | $300 |
| CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | $100 |
| EASTERN SHORE LAND CONSERVANCY | $100 |
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 (FY17–25, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 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 +53% since the first grant, against +48% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- SESULTANA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $12k · revenue +34%
- LGLANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH FOUNDATION7× · 2017–2025 · $11k · revenue +62%
- SISHORERIVERS INC8× · 2018–2025 · $9k · revenue +42%
Funded once
- LRLANCASTER ROTARY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $3k
- CRCHESTER RIVER ASSOCIATION INCone grant, 2017 · $2k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · $1k
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 lancaster chamber of commerce & industry's mission is to create the environment, facilitate partnerships, and lead on issues that elevate business success. the chamber has 5 strategic priorities: public policy, workforce, business…
To conserve and restore the natural resources through land conservation, water resources stewardship and environmental outreach across central pennsylvania.
The mission of the lake champlain land trust is to save the scenic beauty, natural communities, and recreational amenities of lake champlain by permanently preserving significant islands, shoreline areas, and natural communities in the…
Provides managerial and financial support to its controlled organizations and is also responsible for undertaking activities designed to advance the general health of the community.
The western pennsylvania conservancy protects and restores exceptional places to provide our region with clean waters and healthy forests, wildlife and natural areas for the benefit of present and future generations. the conservancy…
Conservation of lyme's natural, scenic and historic land & water resources.
To provide comprehensive, skillful, cost effective emergency and non- emergency health care services to the lancaster community while continuing to evolve with changing health care needs.
Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…
Potomac conservancy safeguards the land and waters of the potomac river and its tributaries and connects people to this national treasure.
To inspire curiosity, creativity, and confidence by fostering an inclusive environment for hands-on stem exploration. we actively seek to make our facility and educational programs accessible to all.
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 land trust accreditation commission is to inspire excellence, promote public trust and ensure permanence in the conservation of open lands by recognizing land trust organizations that meet rigorous quality standards and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lancaster General Health Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Power Packs Project. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 24 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 SULTANA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SHORERIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds POWER PACKS PROJECT ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF KENT COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL ↗
- Who funds LANCASTER COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds LANCASTER COUNTY CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds RADCLIFFE CREEK SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds SCHREIBER CENTER FOR PEDIATRIC DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds CHESTER RIVER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LANCASTER COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LANCASTER CITY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds EASTERN SHORE LAND 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: The Steinman Foundation · High Foundation · Lancaster County Community Foundation · W Paul Starkey Foundation · Willis and Elsie Shenk Foundation · David a Bramble Foundation Inc · Ferree Foundation · Mid Shore Community Foundation Inc · Clark Associates Charitable Foundation · The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment Inc · The Seraph Foundation Inc 6018-01-41 · The Henry Sears 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 Lynn W and Timothy W Peters Family 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Eastern Shore Land Conservancy Inc — 100% of income from government
- Shorerivers Inc — 13% of income from government
- Sultana Education Foundation Inc — 8% of income from government
- Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc — 2% 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.