· Private foundation
Sandpiper Fund Inc
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 $10k93 grants · $202k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $70k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SAVE THE SOUND | $30,000 |
| PROPUBLICA | $20,000 |
| NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL | $10,000 |
| OPEN SECRETS | $10,000 |
| FRIENDS OF THE MARINE EDUCATION CENTER | $9,920 |
| Individual grant recipient | $8,620 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA | $5,000 |
| MAMARONECK-LARCHMONT STUDENT AID FUND | $5,000 |
| SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND | $5,000 |
| PARTNERS IN HEALTH | $5,000 |
| AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION RIGHTS | $5,000 |
| NYCLU | $5,000 |
| NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION | $5,000 |
| SOUNDWATERS | $5,000 |
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 (FY20–24, $39k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 72% 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.
98 repeat relationships — 84 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 13 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, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $37k 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
- STSAVE THE SOUND5× · 2020–2024 · $140k · revenue +20%
PRO PUBLICA INC5× · 2020–2024 · $55k · revenue +71%
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC5× · 2020–2024 · $50k · revenue +26%
Funded once
- HUHEBREW UNION COLLEGE-JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGIONone grant, 2022 · $7k
- CFCENTER FOR CREATIVE CHANGEgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +40%
- NANORTHSIDE ACHIEVEMENT ZONEone grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue +17%
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 union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
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…
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
See schedule onylcv is a non-partisan policy making and political action organization that works to make environmental protection a top priority with elected officials, decision-makers and the voters by evaluating incumbent performance and…
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Partnership to End Homelessness Inc and the most unlike its peers is Friends of the Old Croton Aqueduct. 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 36 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) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
90 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. 90 of the 123 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 SAVE THE SOUND ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds OPENSECRETS ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds Electronic Frontier Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds THE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds PROLITERACY WORLDWIDE ↗
- Who funds MAMARONECK-LARCHMONT STUDENT AID FUND ↗
- Who funds UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATIONAL JAZZ MUSEUM IN HARLEM ↗
- Who funds HOPE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds SELFHELP COMMUNITY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds THE PARTNERSHIP TO END HOMELESSNESS INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SOUNDWATERS INC ↗
- Who funds Aquinnah Community Association Inc ↗
- Who funds MERCY UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA 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: Jewish Communal Fund · Mallah Family Foundation Inc · S&P Global Foundation Fka the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation · The Ayco Charitable Foundation · The Gwendolen Appleyard Trust for New Rochelle Charities · Mbia Foundation · Chubb Charitable Foundation · Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Ibm International Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc
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 Sandpiper Fund Inc 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Hias Inc — 88% of income from government
- Save the Sound — 37% of income from government
- Silent Spring Institute Inc — 12% of income from government
- Soundwaters Inc — 4% of income from government
- Sheriff's Meadow Foundation — 2% of income from government
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 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 Sandpiper Fund Inc?
Find your warmest path to Sandpiper Fund Inc 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.