Skip to content
Nion Robert Thieriot Foundation at a glance

· 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 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 2025.

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

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

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:

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

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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
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

  • 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

    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
    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
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Berkshire Natural Resources Council Inc; 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 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.

    Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

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

    Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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
    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 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 ↗

    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.

    Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
    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

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

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
    • New England Forestry Foundation Inc: 88% of income from government
    • Greenagers Inc: 7% of income from government
    • Berkshire Natural Resources Council Inc: 1% 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, 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 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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 9 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 Nion Robert Thieriot’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