· Private foundation
Sam and Mary Lawrence Foundation
Its FY2024 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 FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k20 grants · $72k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $36k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| KEEPERS OF BAKER ISLAND | $25,500 |
| AMERICAN INDEPENDENT RADIO (CO AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION) | $10,000 |
| OUR CHILDREN'S TRUST | $7,500 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE | $7,500 |
| BLACK VOTERS MATTER | $5,000 |
| WHEN WE ALL VOTE | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| MOVEMENT VOTER PROJECT | $5,000 |
| AMERICARES | $5,000 |
| FEEL GOOD ACTION | $5,000 |
| CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY | $5,000 |
| COMPASSION AND CHOICES | $5,000 |
| NORTH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION | $2,500 |
| EARTHJUSTICE | $2,500 |
| NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL | $2,500 |
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 (FY20–20, $750) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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 +24% since the first grant, against +11% for the ones you funded once.
19 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 15 since wound down; 18 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 19% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $88k 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
- ELEnvironmental Law Institute3× · 2020–2024 · $11k · revenue +10%
AMERICARES FOUNDATION INC2× · 2023–2024 · $7k · revenue +19%- FOFriends of Acadia2× · 2022–2024 · $5k · revenue +88%
Funded once
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue +11%
- NPNational Philanthropic Fundone grant, 2022 · $10k
NEW GEORGIA PROJECT INCone grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue -93%
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.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
Eastern national promotes the public's understanding and support of america's national parks and other public trust partners by providing quality educational experiences, products and services.
Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…
The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
To partner with individuals and organizations to access, organize, and share data that inspires action that restores our environment.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is League of Conservation Voters Inc and the most unlike its peers is National Geographic Society. 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 35 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 8% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
55 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. 55 of the 125 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 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Environmental Law Institute ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OUR CHILDREN'S TRUST ↗
- Who funds AMERICARES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY ↗
- Who funds NEW GEORGIA PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds COLORADO ALLIANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATORS OF NROTH CAROLINA ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF ALASKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES ↗
- Who funds HERRING GUT COASTAL SCIENCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds SALMON VALLEY STEWARDSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds Feel Good Action ↗
- Who funds COMPASSION & CHOICES ↗
- Who funds Friends of Acadia ↗
- Who funds Sightline Institute ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN & NATURE NETWORK ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN JOURNALISM PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCA ↗
- Who funds COMMON POWER ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS 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: Cornelia Cogswell Rossi Foundation Inc · Maine Community Foundation Inc · Janet Stone Jones Foundation · E Newbold & Margaret Dupont Smith F Foundation (Dba Thornedge Fdn) · Fore River Foundation · Colket Family Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Seattle Foundation · T Rowe Price Program for Charitable Giving Inc · Tides Foundation · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust
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 Sam and Mary Lawrence 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.
- Dolphin Research Center Inc — 0% of income from government
- Olney Theatre Corporation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Americares Foundation Inc — 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.