Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Nion Robert Thieriot 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.

$862k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$252k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Environment$4.8MAnimals$395kFood & Nutrition$282kArts & Culture$28k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $605k
  • $250k+1 grant · $252k
$130,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$6.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GREENAGERS$252,000
BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL$175,000
NEW MARLBOROUGH LAND TRUST$150,000
SONOMA LAND TRUST$130,000
MONTEREY PRESERVATION LAND TRUST$50,000
MASSACHUSETTS SPCA$50,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$50,000
STURGEON'S MILL RESTORATION PROJECT$5,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%NEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION: $50k → 8%NEW MARLBOROUGH LAND TRUST: $225k → 12%MASSACHUSETTS SPCA: $54k → 16%STURGEON'S MILL RESTORATION PROJECT: $5k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $275k → 10%NEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION: $30k → 8%NEW MARLBOROUGH LAND TRUST: $150k → 12%MASSACHUSETTS SPCA: $50k → 16%SONOMA LAND TRUST: $130k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $275k → 10%NEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION: $25k → 8%NEW MARLBOROUGH LAND TRUST: $55k → 12%MASSACHUSETTS SPCA: $50k → 16%STURGEON'S MILL RESTORATION PROJECT: $5k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $255k → 10%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL: $290k → 12%MASSACHUSETTS SPCA: $50k → 16%SONOMA LAND TRUST: $35k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $225k → 10%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL: $275k → 12%MASSACHUSETTS SPCA: $47k → 16%STURGEON'S MILL RESTORATION PROJECT: $5k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $200k → 10%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL: $240k → 12%MASSACHUSETTS SPCA: $44k → 16%SONOMA LAND TRUST: $25k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $200k → 10%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL: $240k → 12%MASSACHUSETTS SPCA: $39k → 16%STURGEON'S MILL RESTORATION PROJECT: $5k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $200k → 10%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL: $240k → 12%MASSACHUSETTS SPCA: $37k → 16%SONOMA LAND TRUST: $25k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $150k → 10%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL: $240k → 12%MASSACHUSETTS SPCA: $24k → 16%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $50k → 10%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL: $175k → 12%SONOMA LAND TRUST: $25k → 9%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL: $175k → 12%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL: $150k → 12%SONOMA LAND TRUST: $20k → 9%GREENAGERS: $252k → 12%GREENAGERS: $25k → 12%MONTEREY PRESERVATION LAND TRUST: $55k → 12%MONTEREY PRESERVATION LAND TRUST: $50k → 12%MONTEREY PRESERVATION LAND TRUST: $20k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$3.6M · 8 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

8 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
0

Total granted

$3.6M
$0

Still filing today

100%
0%

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
EnvironmentAnimalsFood & NutritionArts & CultureOther

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

  • BN
    BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.0M · revenue +173%
  • NM
    NEW MARLBOROUGH LAND TRUST INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $430k · revenue +246% · 60% of their budget
  • MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $395k · revenue +115%

Funded once

    Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

    04Your field

    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.

    1
    Massachusetts Outdoor Heritage Foundation Inc Attn Susan Sacco
    2
    Massachusetts Land Conservation Trust

    Conservation and preservation of land.

    Environment
    3
    Kestrel Land Trust

    Kestrel land trust conserves and cares for forests, farms, and riverways in the connecticut river valley of western massachusetts while nurturing an enduring love of the land

    Environment
    4
    Brewster Conservation Trust

    Land conservation

    Environment
    5
    North County Land Trust Inc

    We connect people to natural places by protecting open land and creating outdoor experiences in north central massachusetts.

    Environment
    6
    Nashoba Conservation Trust

    Acquire, preserve and maintain natural resources and wildlife habitat areas (land conservation).

    Environment
    7
    Wildlands Trust Inc

    The wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…

    Environment
    8
    Nantucket Conservation Foundation Inc

    The nantucket conservation foundation owns, protects, and stewards over 9,000 acres of land and coastal shoreline, conserves nantucket's rare and significant natural resources, and engages in impactful ecological research to inform…

    Environment
    9
    The Trustees of Reservations

    Overview - founded in boston by pioneering landscape architect and open space visionary charles eliot in 1891, the trustees is the nation's first and the commonwealth's largest conservation and preservation nonprofit.

    Environment
    10
    Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc

    To protect the nature of massachusetts for people and for wildlife through education, land conservation, advocacy, scientific research, and habitat stewardship/restoration.

    Environment
    11
    Princeton Land Trust

    The princeton land trust was formed to preserve the natural beauty and rural character of the town of princeton.

    12
    Bourne Conservation Trust

    To provide the general public with woodland trails through a wildlife sanctuary in a natural state for their appreciation and enjoyment

    Environment

    For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Berkshire Natural Resources Council Inc and the most unlike its peers is Sturgeons Mill Restoration Project. 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

    9 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

    2
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    6
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    9/9
    Grantees still filing
    9/9
    Grew since you first funded

    Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

    BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INC — $2,025,000 · EnvironmentBERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INCSONOMA LAND TRUST — $260,000 · EnvironmentSONOMA LAND TRUSTMONTEREY PRESERVATION LAND TRUST INC — $125,000 · EnvironmentNEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION INC — $105,000 · EnvironmentTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $1,830,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYNEW MARLBOROUGH LAND TRUST INC — $430,000 · OtherNEW MARLBOROUGH LAND TRUST INCMASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS — $394,500 · AnimalsGREENAGERS INC — $282,000 · Food & NutritionSTURGEONS MILL RESTORATION PROJECT — $28,000 · Arts & Culture
    Environment$2,515,000Other$2,260,000Animals$394,500Food & Nutrition$282,000Arts & Culture$28,000

    Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetBERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INC — $2,025,000 over 9y, 12% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $1,830,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetNEW MARLBOROUGH LAND TRUST INC — $430,000 over 3y, 60% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS — $394,500 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetGREENAGERS INC — $282,000 over 3y, 7.6% of budgetSONOMA LAND TRUST — $260,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetMONTEREY PRESERVATION LAND TRUST INC — $125,000 over 3y, 35% of budgetNEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION INC — $105,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetSTURGEONS MILL RESTORATION PROJECT — $28,000 over 7y, 20% of budget
    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 BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INC
    • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
    • Who funds NEW MARLBOROUGH LAND TRUST INC
    • Who funds MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
    • Who funds GREENAGERS INC
    • Who funds SONOMA LAND TRUST
    • Who funds MONTEREY PRESERVATION LAND TRUST INC
    • Who funds NEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION INC
    • Who funds STURGEONS MILL RESTORATION PROJECT

    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.

    Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

    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 Nion Robert Thieriot 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.

    2024
    202122232425
    no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 7%
    • New England Forestry Foundation Inc88% of income from government
    • Greenagers Inc7% of income from government
    • Berkshire Natural Resources Council Inc1% of income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    1rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Nion Robert Thieriot Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Nion Robert Thieriot 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 9 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph