· Private foundation
Sally Foss & James Scott Hill 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
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k28 grants · $107k
- $10k–50k18 grants · $308k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CENTER AT 353 | $50,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $35,000 |
| DEERFIELD ACADEMY | $30,000 |
| THE WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN | $30,000 |
| SALEM HOSPITAL ER DEPARTMENT | $30,000 |
| WILLIAMS COLLEGE - DAVIS CENTER FOR DEI - ALLISON DAVIS RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP | $25,000 |
| BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL - DR CIARAN MCNAMEE | $25,000 |
| DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE - DR PASI JANNE | $15,000 |
| PRINCETON FIRST AID AND RESCUE SQUAD | $15,000 |
| UNIDOSUS | $13,000 |
| MASS EYE AND EAR HOSPITAL - DR JENNIFER KIM FACIAL SURGERY | $10,000 |
| MASS EYE AND EAR HOSPITAL - DR JESSICA FEWKES DERMATOLOGY | $10,000 |
| DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE - DR DAVID KOZONO | $10,000 |
| WILLIAMS COLLEGE CLASS OF '78 ANNUAL FUND | $10,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CRUZ - MAYA K PETERSON MEMORIAL FUND | $10,000 |
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, $667k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 20% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +27% since the first grant, against +20% for the ones you funded once.
56 repeat relationships — 19 still active in FY2025, 37 since wound down; 28 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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, 39% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $285k 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
- CACENTER AT 353 INC9× · 2017–2025 · $531k · revenue +4%
- TOTRUSTEES OF DEERFIELD ACADEMY9× · 2017–2025 · $265k · revenue +122%
- DSDUBLIN SCHOOL INC9× · 2017–2025 · $202k · revenue +75%
Funded once
- MGMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATEDone grant, 2023 · $103k
- BWBRIGHAM & WOMEN'S THORACIC SURGERYone grant, 2024 · $53k
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Incone grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue 0%
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 bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
Education and Research
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…
Fordham university, the jesuit university of new york, is committed to the discovery of wisdom and the transmission of learning, through research and through education of the highest quality. for more information, see schedule o.
Northeast college of health sciences (the college) is committed to academic excellence, leadership, and professional best practices in the health sciences.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Princeton Day School Inc and the most unlike its peers is Indigenous Women Rising Indigeous Women Rising. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 47 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
64 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. 64 of the 141 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 CENTER AT 353 INC ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF DEERFIELD ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds KIPP MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds DUBLIN SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds Teach for America Inc ↗
- Who funds Williams College ↗
- Who funds Seabury Resources for Aging ↗
- Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds BROOKWOOD SCHOOL INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds HISTORIC MORVEN INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds Vermont Law School ↗
- Who funds ROOM TO GROW NATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds PRINCETON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOUNDATION 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 Snyder Family Fund · Curtis W McGraw Foundation · Greater Washington Community Foundation · Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation Inc · Princeton Area Community Foundation Inc · The Griffin-Cole Fund · Verizon Foundation · The Edward E & Marie L Matthews Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Ibm International Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation
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 Sally Foss & James Scott Hill 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.
- World Learning Inc — 39% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Reclaim Childhood Inc — 24% of income from government
- The Green Mountain Club Inc Debonis — 17% of income from government
- Vermont Law School — 14% of income from government
- Raw Art Works Inc — 7% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Shatterproof a Nonprofit Corporation — 2% of income from government
- The Trustees of Reservations — 2% of income from government
- Goucher College — 0% of income from government
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Milton Academy — 0% of income from government
- The Vermont Community Foundation — 0% of income from government
- Williams College — 0% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Sally Foss & James Scott Hill Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Sally Foss & James Scott Hill 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.