Skip to content
Nandale Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Nandale 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.

$8k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2024.

Environment$25kAnimals$9kFood & Nutrition$6kArts & Culture$6kCivil Rights$6kEmployment$4kHealth$3kInternational$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$800
Median grant
2
States reached
$201k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COCO'S HEART DOG RESCUE$1,500
PETTIJOHN & FRIENDS$1,500
TWIN CITIES PUBLIC TELEVISION (TPT)$1,000
MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO$1,000
EVERY MEAL$800
FAMILY TREE CLINIC$600
NORTHWOODS HUMANE SOCIETY$600
ROSELLA'S KITCHEN & FOOD PANTRY$500
DIVISION OF INDIAN WORK$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 (FY24–25, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%DIVISION OF INDIAN WORK: $500 → 11%DIVISION OF INDIAN WORK: $500 → 11%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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$46k · 10 repeat orgs$23k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
14

Total granted

$46k
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+81%

Still filing today

60%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
EnvironmentAnimalsArts & CultureFood & NutritionHealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • CM
    CONSERVATION MINNESOTA
    5× · 2017–2024 · $9k · revenue +20%
  • MP
    MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO AMERICAN PUBLIC MEDIA
    8× · 2017–2025 · $7k · revenue +5%
  • DO
    Dream of Wild Health
    2× · 2022–2023 · $6k · revenue +28%

Funded once

  • LS
    LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT
    one grant, 2021 · $2k · revenue -4%
  • PP
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD
    one grant, 2023 · $2k
  • I
    IMAGITRENDS
    one grant, 2020 · $2k
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
Minnesota Land Trust

The minnesota land trust protects and restores minnesota's most vital natural lands in order to provide wildlife habitat, clean water, outdoor experiences and scenic beauty for generations to come.

Environment
2
Minnesota Environmental Partnership

The minnesota environmental partnership is a coalition that strengthens member effectiveness and builds collective power to secure a healthy environment for all minnesotans.

Environment
3
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

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…

Environment
4
Compassionate Action for Animals

Compassionate action for animals encourages minnesotans to embrace their empathy for animals and move towards a plant-based diet. caa envisions a world where all animals, human and non-human can thrive.

Animals
5
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy

Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.

Food & Nutrition
6
Minn-Kota Paaws People Advocating Animal Welfare Services

To offer financial assistance to individuals to aid them in spaying/neuter companion animals and to decrease the number of animals euthanized at local pounds.

Animals
7
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
8
Wild Rivers Conservancy of the St Croix & Namekagon

The mission of wild rivers conservancy of the st. croix & namekagon is to inspire stewardship to forever ensure the rare ecological integrity of the st. croix and namekagon riverway. the conservancy of the st. croix and namekagon works…

Environment
9
Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…

Environment
10
Washington Wild

Washington wild protects and restores wild lands and waters in washington state through advocacy, education and civic engagement.

Animals
11
Native Plant Trust Inc

The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.

Environment
12
Protect Minnesota

Protect Minnesota promotes a culture of health and safety for all Minnesotans by preventing gun violence through research education advocacy and community investment. We emphasize prevention using a public health model and we seek to build…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Minnesota; the most unlike its peers is Pettijohn and Friends 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

16 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. 16 of the 30 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
11/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Dream of Wild Health: $6,000 · OtherDream of Wild HealthTWIN CITIES PUBLIC TELEVISION(KTCA): $5,550 · OtherTWIN CITIES PUBLIC TELEVISION(KTCA)PETTIJOHN AND FRIENDS INC: $4,500 · OtherPETTIJOHN AND FRIENDS INCTree Trust: $4,000 · OtherTree TrustWILDWOOD REHABILITATION CENTER: $3,000 · OtherWILDWOOD REHABILITATION CENTERPLANNED PARENTHOOD: $1,600 · OtherIMAGITRENDS: $1,500 · OtherSOUTHLAND CITY CHURCH -MISSION TRIP: $1,500 · OtherNAMI MINNESOTA: $1,500 · OtherWILDLIFE REHABILITATION CLINIC: $1,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $1,500 · Other+7 more: $5,650 · Other+7 moreCONSERVATION MINNESOTA: $8,500 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION MINNESOTALOWER PHALEN CREEK PROJECT: $6,000 · EnvironmentLOWER PHALEN CREEK PROJECTLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: $2,000 · EnvironmentLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECTMN350: $1,500 · EnvironmentMN350POLLINATOR FRIENDLY ALLIANCE INC: $1,000 · EnvironmentMINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO AMERICAN PUBLIC MEDIA: $6,550 · Arts & CultureMINNESOTA …COCO'S HEART DOG RESCUE: $1,500 · AnimalsNORTHWOODS HUMANE SOCIETY: $600 · AnimalsTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE: $400 · AnimalsDIVISION OF INDIAN WORK: $1,000 · Human ServicesEVERY MEAL: $800 · Food & NutritionFamily Tree Inc: $600 · Health
Other$37,800Environment$19,000Arts & Culture$6,550Animals$2,500Human Services$1,000Food & Nutrition$800Health$600

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 budgetCONSERVATION MINNESOTA: $8,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetMINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO AMERICAN PUBLIC MEDIA: $6,550 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetLOWER PHALEN CREEK PROJECT: $6,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetDream of Wild Health: $6,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTree Trust: $4,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNAMI MINNESOTA: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMN350: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWORLD POPULATION BALANCE: $1,250 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetPOLLINATOR FRIENDLY ALLIANCE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetDIVISION OF INDIAN WORK: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEVERY MEAL: $800 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE: $400 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 CONSERVATION MINNESOTA ↗
  • Who funds MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO AMERICAN PUBLIC MEDIA ↗
  • Who funds LOWER PHALEN CREEK PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds Dream of Wild Health ↗
  • Who funds Tree Trust ↗
  • Who funds LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds COCO'S HEART DOG RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds NAMI MINNESOTA ↗
  • Who funds MN350 ↗
  • Who funds WORLD POPULATION BALANCE ↗
  • Who funds POLLINATOR FRIENDLY ALLIANCE INC ↗
  • Who funds DIVISION OF INDIAN WORK ↗
  • Who funds EVERY MEAL ↗
  • Who funds Family Tree Inc ↗
  • Who funds NORTHWOODS HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE ↗

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 Minneapolis Found…Saint Paul & Minnesot…Manitou FundFr Bigelow FoundationMightycause Charitabl…Margaret a Cargill Fo…Otto Bremer TrustXcel Energy FoundationHeadwaters Foundation…Common Counsel Founda…The McKnight Foundati…Patagoniaorg
The Minneapolis FoundationMN20.8× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Minneapolis Foundation · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Manitou Fund · Fr Bigelow Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Margaret a Cargill Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · Xcel Energy Foundation · Headwaters Foundation for Justice · Common Counsel Foundation · The McKnight Foundation · Patagoniaorg

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Nandale Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Nandale Foundation 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 30 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 Nandale’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