· Public charity
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests
The SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS was founded in 1901 to protect the state's most important landscapes and promote the wise use of its natural resources.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 5 grants below total $80,347 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $108,977 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $28,630 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $16k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $64k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FIVE RIVERS CONSERVATION TRUST | $32,381 |
| SOUTHEAST LAND TRUST OF NEW HAMPSHIRE | $18,696 |
| TOWN OF BROOKLINE | $13,052 |
| SUDBURY VALLEY TRUSTEES | $8,422 |
| ESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION | $7,796 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 71% of your 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.
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.
16 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 1 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, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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
- TMThe Monadnock Conservancy7× · 2017–2024 · $112k · revenue +85%
- PLPISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY5× · 2018–2024 · $93k · revenue +142%
- SVSUDBURY VALLEY TRUSTEES INC5× · 2017–2025 · $48k · revenue +40%
Funded once
- KLKESTREL LAND TRUST INCone grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue -47%
- NCNORTH COUNTY LAND TRUST INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $23k · revenue +393%
THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $22k · revenue +109%
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.
Conservation and preservation of land.
The mission of the Organization is the conservation of the natural resources of the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, the preservation of wildlife habitat, the stewardship of lands that define the character of the region and its quality of…
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
Acquire, preserve and maintain natural resources and wildlife habitat areas (land conservation).
The Organization works with local landowners to permanently protect natural land and waters that define its community and enrich the quality of life by purchasing, managing, negotiating and developing conservations easements in the Upper…
Founded in 1966, Aspetuck Land Trust is a non-profit membership ogranization whose mission is to protect land forever and connect people to the natural world.
The royal river conservation trust (rrct) is a regional land trust working primarily in seven maine municipalities. the trust owns,cares for, and stewards land and conservation easements to protect land and water resources for the general…
We engage with communities to conserve, steward, and provide access to local lands and clean water for current and future generations to enjoy.
The mission of the SRLT is to recognize and conserve the rich wild and workinglandscape of Central Maine's Sebasticook River watershed through conservation,stewardship and education. Our focal programs are land conservation for…
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…
The orleans conservation trust protects and restores natural lands- for people and wildlife, the health of our waters, and the character of our community. a private nonprofit organization, the trust acquires and manages land to enhance…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sudbury Valley Trustees Inc and the most unlike its peers is Candid. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 45 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% 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 10% 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.
24 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. 24 of the 34 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 The Monadnock Conservancy ↗
- Who funds ESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Five Rivers Conservation Trust ↗
- Who funds PISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds BEAR-PAW REGIONAL GREENWAYS ↗
- Who funds SUDBURY VALLEY TRUSTEES INC ↗
- Who funds UPPER VALLEY TRAILS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds KESTREL LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds UPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds MASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH COUNTY LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds HARRIS CENTER FOR CONSERVATION EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds Appalachian Mountain Club ↗
- Who funds CANDID ↗
- Who funds HANOVER CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds MOUNT GRACE LAND CONSERVATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds Southeast Land Trust of New Hampshire ↗
- Who funds AUSBON SARGENT LAND PRESERVATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Audubon Society of New Hampshire ↗
- Who funds NORTH QUABBIN TRAILS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds Francestown Land Trust Inc ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST WILDERNESS TRUST CORPORATION ↗
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: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · Fields Pond Foundation Inc · Adelard & Valeda Roy Foundation · Fidelity Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Davis Conservation Foundation · Bafflin Foundation · Land Trust Alliance Inc · An Environmental Trust Inc · Allan B Roby & Frances M Roby Charitable Trust · Rhoads Jr Jay-Environmental Fund Tr · The Compass Fund
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 Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests 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.
- Sudbury Valley Trustees Inc — 11% of income from government
- Essex County Greenbelt Association — 8% of income from government
- Upper Valley Trails Alliance — 3% of income from government
- Northeast Wilderness Trust Corporation — 2% of income from government
- Appalachian Mountain Club — 1% of income from government
- Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc — 1% 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.