Skip to content

· Private foundation

Samuel P Pardoe 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.

$405k
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$8.5MPhilanthropy$1.8MHuman Services$291kHealth$78kArts & Culture$73kEducation$43kCommunity Improvement$30kFood & Nutrition$21kOther$0
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $125k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $258k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PRESCOTT CONSERVANCY INC$150,000
PRESCOTT CONSERVANCY INC$107,500
LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE WATERSHED ASSOCIATION$25,000
NEW BEGINNINGS WITHOUT VIOLENCE & ABUSE$15,000
LAKES REGION COMMUNITY SERVICES$12,500
LAKES REGION MENTAL HEALTH CENTER$12,500
AUDUBON SOCIETY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE$10,000
BELKNAP COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT$10,000
LAKES REGION CONSERVATION TRUST$10,000
NEW HAMPSHIRE CATHOLIC CHARITIES (DBA CATHOLIC CHARITIES NEW HAMPSHIRE)$10,000
GRANITE UNITED WAY$10,000
WAYPOINT$10,000
NEW HAMPSHIRE CENTER FOR NONPROFITS$7,500
NEW HAMPSHIRE PRESERVATION ALLIANCE$5,000
SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS$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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–22, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 60% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%YMCA OF GREATER RICHMOND: $8k → 22%FREED CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING: $4k → 11%YMCA OF GREATER RICHMOND: $8k → 22%YMCA OF GREATER RICHMOND: $5k → 22%CATHOLIC CHARITIES NEW HAMPSHIRE: $5k → 7%NEW HAMPSHIRE CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $5k → 7%NEW HAMPSHIRE CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $5k → 7%NEW HAMPSHIRE CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $5k → 7%VINALHAVEN ELDERCARE SERVICES: $1k → 11%VINALHAVEN ELDERCARE SERVICES: $1k → 11%VINALHAVEN ELDERCARE SERVICES: $1k → 11%VINALHAVEN ELDERCARE SERVICES: $1k → 11%VINALHAVEN ELDERCARE SERVICES: $1k → 11%VINALHAVEN ELDERCARE SERVICES: $1k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
NH
MI
MA
CA
VA
MD
DC
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$9.1M · 35 repeat orgs$103k to everyone else

35 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 20 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

35
15

Total granted

$9.1M
$103k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+32%
+81%

Still filing today

77%
40%

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
EnvironmentHuman ServicesAnimalsHealthEducationArts & 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

  • PC
    PRESCOTT CONSERVANCY INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $8.0M · revenue +9% · 75% of their budget
  • GU
    GRANITE UNITED WAY
    5× · 2020–2025 · $140k · revenue +32%
  • NB
    NEW BEGINNINGS WITHOUT VIOLENCE & ABUSE
    5× · 2021–2025 · $70k · revenue +61%

Funded once

  • CA
    CULTURAL ARTS CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $25k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $25k
  • MS
    Mattole Salmon Group
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue -14%
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
Midcoast Conservancy

The mission of Midcoast Conservancy is to protect vital lands and waters on a scale that matters and to inspire wonder and action on behalf of all species and the Earth.

Environment
2
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
3
Islesboro Islands Trust

The mission of Islesboro Islands Trust is to enhance the quality of residents' lives through the preservation of open space, educate all residents as to the value of the island's natural ecosystems, and act as an environmental advocate on…

Philanthropy
4
Maine Farmland Trust

Maine Farmland Trust protects farmland, supports farmers, and advances the future of farming.

Food & Nutrition
5
Kennebunk Land Trust

Kennebunk Land Trust's mission is to permanently conserve and steward land to benefit natural and human communities.

Environment
6
Coastal Mountains Land Trust

We conserve land permanently to benefit the natural and human communities of western the Penobscot Bay region.

Environment
7
Connecticut Farmland Trust Inc

Protect Connecticuts farmland for agricultural use by purchasing and accepting donations of agricultural conservation easements

Food & Nutrition
8
Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust

To preserve and protect land surrounding the appalachian trail in maine for public benefit.

Environment
9
Chebeague & Cumberland Land Trust

Our mission is to permanently conserve and steward natural resources across our island and mainland communities for the benefit of current and future generations.

—
10
Northeast Wilderness Trust Corporation

Northeast wilderness trust is a regional land trust working to preserve and restore forever-wild landscapes for nature and people in new york, vermont, new hampshire, maine, massachusetts and connecticut.

Environment
11
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
12
Loon Preservation Committee

Restoration of and maintenance of a healthy population of loons and to monitor the health and productivity of loon populations and promotion of a greater understanding of loons and the natural world.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests; the most unlike its peers is Prescott Conservancy 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

35 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. 35 of the 52 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
35/35
Grantees still filing
27/35
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PRESCOTT CONSERVANCY INC: $8,008,989 · EnvironmentPRESCOTT CONSERVANCY INC+7 more: $205,000 · EnvironmentDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $1,362,391 · PhilanthropyDONOR ADVISED …+1 more: $6,000 · PhilanthropyLAKE WINNIPESAUKEE WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: $160,000 · OtherGRANITE UNITED WAY: $140,000 · OtherLAKES REGION COMMUNITY SERVICES: $76,500 · OtherBELKNAP COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $62,000 · OtherNEW HAMPSHIRE CATHOLIC CHARITIES (DBA CATHOLIC CHARITIES NEW HAMPSHIRE): $40,000 · OtherNew Hampshire Preservation Alliance: $27,000 · OtherNEW HAMPSHIRE CENTER FOR NONPROFITS: $30,000 · Other+24 more: $226,250 · OtherFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $288,866 · Community Improvement+1 more: $5,000 · Community ImprovementWAYPOINT: $47,500 · Human ServicesNew Hampshire Catholic Charities: $20,179 · Human ServicesYoung Men's Christian Association of Greater Richmond (6769): $20,000 · Human ServicesVinalhaven Eldercare Services: $6,000 · Human ServicesFREED Center for Independent Living Inc: $4,000 · Human ServicesTHE LAKES REGION MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC: $60,000 · HealthISLANDS COMMUNITY MEDICAL SERVICES: $14,500 · Health+1 more: $1,000 · HealthNEW BEGINNINGS WITHOUT VIOLENCE & ABUSE: $70,000 · Civil Rights
Environment$8,213,989Philanthropy$1,368,391Other$761,750Community Improvement$293,866Human Services$97,679Health$75,500Civil Rights$70,000

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 budgetPRESCOTT CONSERVANCY INC: $8,008,989 over 9y, 75% of budgetDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $1,362,391 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $288,866 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGRANITE UNITED WAY: $140,000 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetNEW BEGINNINGS WITHOUT VIOLENCE & ABUSE: $70,000 over 5y, 2.2% of budgetLakes Region Conservation Trust: $65,000 over 6y, 5.6% of budgetTHE LAKES REGION MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC: $60,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL PARK TRUST INC: $60,000 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetWAYPOINT: $47,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetAudubon Society of New Hampshire: $40,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetNEW HAMPSHIRE CENTER FOR NONPROFITS: $30,000 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetNew Hampshire Preservation Alliance: $27,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetNew Hampshire Catholic Charities: $20,179 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetYoung Men's Christian Association of Greater Richmond (6769): $20,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFAIR FOOD NETWORK INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS: $20,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetISLANDS COMMUNITY MEDICAL SERVICES: $14,500 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetVINALHAVEN LAND TRUST INC: $12,000 over 6y, 0.8% of budgetWASHINGTON HUMANE SOCIETY: $7,800 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSCIENCE MUSEUM OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION INC: $6,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetVinalhaven Eldercare Services: $6,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetPartners In Island Education Inc: $6,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetGROUNDWORK RVA INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetFREED Center for Independent Living Inc: $4,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMaine Coast Heritage Trust: $3,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetMAYMONT FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLifeFlight of Maine LLC: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC: $1,200 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLifeFlight Foundation: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLIVE AND LET LIVE FARM INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 PRESCOTT CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
  • Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
  • Who funds GRANITE UNITED WAY ↗
  • Who funds NEW BEGINNINGS WITHOUT VIOLENCE & ABUSE ↗
  • Who funds Lakes Region Conservation Trust ↗
  • Who funds THE LAKES REGION MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL PARK TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds WAYPOINT ↗
  • Who funds Audubon Society of New Hampshire ↗
  • Who funds NEW HAMPSHIRE CENTER FOR NONPROFITS ↗
  • Who funds New Hampshire Preservation Alliance ↗
  • Who funds New Hampshire Catholic Charities ↗
  • Who funds Young Men's Christian Association of Greater Richmond (6769) ↗
  • Who funds FAIR FOOD NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS ↗
  • Who funds ISLANDS COMMUNITY MEDICAL SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds VINALHAVEN LAND TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds Mattole Salmon Group ↗
  • Who funds Live It Learn It ↗
  • Who funds VINALHAVEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds SCIENCE MUSEUM OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE VINALHAVEN PUBLIC LIBRARY ↗
  • Who funds Vinalhaven Eldercare Services ↗
  • Who funds Partners In Island Education Inc ↗
  • Who funds GROUNDWORK RVA INC ↗

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.

New Hampshire Charitable FoundationNH27.9× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · Maine Community Foundation Inc · Middlecott Foundation · Adelard & Valeda Roy Foundation · The Jm Kaplan Fund Inc · The Nature Conservancy · Lincoln Financial Foundation Inc · Ibm International Foundation · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · The Pfizer Foundation Inc

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 51%
  • National Park Trust Inc: 51% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
9report 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 Samuel P Pardoe Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Samuel P Pardoe 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 52 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 Samuel P Pardoe’s filings →

More from the funding graph