Skip to content
Mericle Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Mericle Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$84k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$38k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$1.7MHousing & Shelter$672kEducation$454kInternational$201kCommunity Improvement$198kYouth Development$178kHuman Services$155kPublic Safety & Disaster$100kOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $2k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $83k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICA 250 PA$37,500
NORTHEAST SIGHT SERVICES$15,000
MISERICORDIA UNIVERSITY$10,000
ST JOSEPH'S CENTER FOUNDATION$10,000
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY$10,000
WOMAN'S RESOURCE CENTER$1,000
DINNERS FOR KIDS$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 (FY18–24, $337k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 79% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%ST JOSEPH'S CENTER FOUNDATION: $10k → 13%ST JOSEPH'S CENTER FOUNDATION: $10k → 13%ST JOSEPH'S CENTER FOUNDATION: $10k → 13%ST JOSEPH CENTER FOUNDATION: $10k → 13%ST JOSEPH CENTER FOUNDATION: $10k → 13%ST JOSEPH'S CENTER FOUNDATION: $10k → 13%ST JOSEPH'S CENTER FOUNDATION: $10k → 13%NORTHEAST SIGHT SERVICES: $15k → 15%CANDY'S PLACE: $100k → 15%CANDY'S PLACE: $60k → 15%CANDY'S PLACE: $42k → 15%CANDY'S PLACE: $10k → 15%CANDY'S PLACE: $10k → 15%CANDY'S PLACE: $10k → 15%CANDY'S PLACE: $10k → 15%CANDY'S PLACE: $10k → 15%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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.6M · 18 repeat orgs$1.3M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +63% since the first grant, against +16% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
22

Total granted

$2.6M
$1.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+63%
+16%

Still filing today

61%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesEducationCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionArts & 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

  • GH
    GEISINGER HEALTH
    7× · 2017–2023 · $1.3M · revenue +235%
  • TC
    THE CANCER WELLNESS CENTER OF NEPA
    6× · 2018–2023 · $252k · revenue +216% · 65% of their budget
  • JA
    JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF NEPA INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $201k · revenue +121% · 37% of their budget

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $647k
  • HA
    HAZLETON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
    one grant, 2020 · $200k
  • AR
    AMERICAN RED CROSS
    one grant, 2017 · $100k
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
Northeastern Pennsylvania Health Care Foundation
Education
2
Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center

Strive to make better health easier by providing access to affordable, high quality health services through equitable, innovative, and inclusive care models that support patient care, education, research, & community service.

Health
3
Upmc Williamsport

UPMC Williamsport is a subsidiary of UPMC Susquehanna. The mission of UPMC Susquehanna and its subsidiaries is to serve the community by providing outstanding patient care and shaping tomorrow's health care through clinical and…

Health
4
Upmc Pinnacle Hospitals

Upmc pinnacle hospitals mission as a charitable organization is dedicatied to maintaining and improving the health and quality of life for all persons of the central pennsylvania area.

Health
5
Lehigh Valley Hospital - Pocono

Our mission is who we are and what we do: to provide world class care close to home. our vision is what we aim for to best serve our community: to build a healthier community.

Health
6
Highmark Health Group

Working as an integrated system within highmark health, employees at all of ahn's care sites, including hospitals, health + wellness pavilions, primary and specialty care offices and more, are committed to improving health and promoting…

—
7
Geisinger Medical Center

Strive to make better health easier by providing access to affordable, high quality health services through equitable, innovative, and inclusive care models that support patient care, education, research, & community services.

Health
8
Community Medical Center

Strive to make better health easier by providing access to affordable, high quality health services through equitable, innovative, and inclusive care models that support patient care, education, research, and community service.

Health
9
Saint Joseph's University

As philadelphia's jesuit catholic university, saint joseph's provides a rigorous, student-centered education rooted in the liberal arts. we prepare students for personal excellence, professional success, and engaged citizenship. striving…

Education
10
Philadelphia Health Partnership
Health
11
Delaware Valley University

See schedule o.we are inspired by the ideals of our founder who, in 1896, emphasized respect for all people and ideas, who honored knowledge with practice, progress and the common good. our historical commitment to experiential learning…

—
12
Penn State Health

Penn state health's mission is to continually improve the health and well-being of the people of pennsylvania, and beyond. the organization provides patients with excellent, compassionate and equitable care; educates and trains (continued…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of Wyoming Valley; the most unlike its peers is Dinners for Kids Inc. 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

20 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. 20 of the 42 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/20
Grantees still filing
15/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $646,547 · OtherIndividual grant recipientHAZLETON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT: $200,000 · OtherHAZLETON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICTAMERICAN RED CROSS: $100,000 · OtherAMERICAN RED CROSSCATHOLIC YOUTH CENTER: $100,000 · OtherCATHOLIC YOUTH CENTERJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT: $77,288 · OtherGEISINGER COMMONWEALTH SCHOOL: $75,000 · OtherWILKES-BARRE FAMILY YMCA: $75,000 · Other+21 more: $346,000 · Other+21 moreGEISINGER HEALTH: $1,349,000 · HealthGEISINGER HEALTH+3 more: $97,500 · Health+3 moreTHE CANCER WELLNESS CENTER OF NEPA: $252,059 · Human ServicesTHE CANCE…ST JOSEPHS CENTER FOUNDATION: $70,000 · Human ServicesST JOSEPH…GREATER WILKES BARRE ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND D/B/A NORTHEAST SIGHT SERVICES: $15,000 · Human ServicesJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF NEPA INC: $200,800 · InternationalPhiladelphia Visitor Center Corporation: $197,500 · Community Improvement+1 more: $1,000 · Community ImprovementMISERICORDIA UNIVERSITY: $40,000 · EducationTHE LUZERNE FOUNDATION: $35,000 · EducationUniversity of Scranton: $20,000 · EducationThe Lands at Hillside Farms: $10,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$1,619,835Health$1,446,500Human Services$337,059International$200,800Community Improvement$198,500Education$95,000Food & Nutrition$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGEISINGER HEALTH: $1,349,000 over 7y, 1.0% of budgetTHE CANCER WELLNESS CENTER OF NEPA: $252,059 over 6y, 65% of budgetJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF NEPA INC: $200,800 over 2y, 37% of budgetPhiladelphia Visitor Center Corporation: $197,500 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetST JOSEPHS CENTER FOUNDATION: $70,000 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetWRC INC: $51,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetVOLUNTEERS IN MEDICINE: $45,000 over 6y, 1.5% of budgetMISERICORDIA UNIVERSITY: $40,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetTHE LUZERNE FOUNDATION: $35,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetEQUALITY PENNSYLVANIA: $25,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $22,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Scranton: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER WILKES BARRE ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND D/B/A NORTHEAST SIGHT SERVICES: $15,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetThe Lands at Hillside Farms: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetOSTERHOUT FREE LIBRARY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetUNITED WAY OF WYOMING VALLEY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDINNERS FOR KIDS INC: $2,500 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetWAVERLY COMMUNITY HOUSE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 GEISINGER HEALTH ↗
  • Who funds THE CANCER WELLNESS CENTER OF NEPA ↗
  • Who funds JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF NEPA INC ↗
  • Who funds Philadelphia Visitor Center Corporation ↗
  • Who funds ST JOSEPHS CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WRC INC ↗
  • Who funds VOLUNTEERS IN MEDICINE ↗
  • Who funds MISERICORDIA UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds THE LUZERNE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MARLEY'S MISSION INC ↗
  • Who funds EQUALITY PENNSYLVANIA ↗
  • Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds University of Scranton ↗
  • Who funds GREATER WILKES BARRE ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND D/B/A NORTHEAST SIGHT SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds The Lands at Hillside Farms ↗
  • Who funds OSTERHOUT FREE LIBRARY ↗
  • Who funds WILKES-BARRE PRESERVATION SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF WYOMING VALLEY ↗
  • Who funds DINNERS FOR KIDS INC ↗

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.

The Tambur Family Fou…Benco Family Foundati…Moses Taylor Foundati…William G McGowan Cha…The Luzerne FoundationSordoni Family Founda…Joseph B and Virginia…Maslow Family Foundat…Allone CharitiesJoseph and Erma Pagli…The Blackhorse Founda…Allone Foundation
The Tambur Family FoundationPA30.5× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Tambur Family Foundation · Benco Family Foundation Fka Cohen Family Charitable Foundation · Moses Taylor Foundation Inc · William G McGowan Charitable Fund · The Luzerne Foundation · Sordoni Family Foundation · Joseph B and Virginia H Banks Foundation · Maslow Family Foundation Inc · Allone Charities · Joseph and Erma Paglianite Charitable Foundation · The Blackhorse Foundation · Allone 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 Mericle Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mericle Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 42 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mericle’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