Skip to content
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$109k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$32k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Environment$963kRecreation & Sports$18kPublic Benefit$10k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $80,347, the rows itemized in this filing. The $108,977 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $28,630 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $64k
$13,052
Median grant
2
States reached
$115M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 71% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%MA AUDUBON: $9k → 8%ESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION: $25k → 10%MASS AUDUBON: $10k → 12%NORTH QUABBIN TRAILS ASSOCIATION: $10k → 14%UPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST: $10k → 9%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND-VT: $22k → 9%SOUTHEAST LAND TRUST: $21k → 5%TOWN OF BROOKLINE: $13k → 7%NELSON CONSERVATION COMMISSION: $14k → 9%HANOVER CONSERVANCY: $10k → 10%SUDBURY VALLEY TRUSTEES: $16k → 8%ESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT: $16k → 10%TOWN OF WINCHENDON: $10k → 11%SOUTHEAST LAND TRUST OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: $20k → 5%MONADNOCK CONSERVANCY: $29k → 9%UPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST: $10k → 10%SUDBURY VALLEY TRUSTEES: $9k → 8%ESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION: $15k → 10%TOWN OF BERLIN (BERLIN CONSERVATION COMMISSION): $13k → 11%KESTREL LAND TRUST: $30k → 12%SOUTHEAST LAND TRUST OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: $16k → 5%TOWN OF HOOKSETT: $11k → 7%MONADNOCK CONSERVANCY: $21k → 9%ESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION: $13k → 10%SOUTHEAST LAND TRUST OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: $15k → 5%FIVE RIVERS CONSERVATION TRUST: $32k → 7%MONADNOCK CONSERVANCY: $19k → 9%NORTH COUNTRY LAND TRUST: $23k → 11%SOUTHEAST LAND TRUST OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: $19k → 5%PISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY: $22k → 7%FIVE RIVERS CONSERVATION TRUST: $20k → 7%MONADNOCK CONSERVANCY: $17k → 9%BEAR-PAW REGIONAL GREENWAYS: $17k → 5%PISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY: $21k → 7%FIVE RIVERS CONSERVATION TRUST: $20k → 7%MONADNOCK CONSERVANCY: $10k → 9%BEAR-PAW REGIONAL GREENWAYS: $15k → 5%PISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY: $20k → 7%FIVE RIVERS CONSERVATION TRUST: $10k → 7%MONADNOCK CONSERVANCY: $10k → 9%PISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY: $15k → 7%NH AUDUBON: $10k → 7%PISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY: $15k → 7%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $10k → 7%HARRIS CENTER FOR CONSERVATION EDUCATION: $10k → 7%HARRIS CENTER: $10k → 7%HARRIS CENTER FOR CONSERVATION EDUCATION - GRANITE LAKE HEADWATERS: $10k → 7%HARRIS CENTER FOR CONSERVATION EDUCATION - ANTRIM WIND ENERGY PROJECT: $10k → 7%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.
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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$765k · 16 repeat orgs$215k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
16

Total granted

$765k
$197k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
+109%

Still filing today

88%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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
EnvironmentPhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • TM
    The Monadnock Conservancy
    7× · 2017–2024 · $112k · revenue +230%
  • PL
    PISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY
    5× · 2018–2024 · $93k · revenue +142%
  • SV
    SUDBURY VALLEY TRUSTEES INC
    5× · 2017–2025 · $48k · revenue +40%

Funded once

  • KL
    KESTREL LAND TRUST INC
    one grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue -47%
  • NC
    NORTH COUNTY LAND TRUST INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $23k · revenue +393%
  • THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $22k · revenue +109%
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
Massachusetts Land Conservation Trust

Conservation and preservation of land.

Environment
2
Lakes Region Conservation Trust

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…

Environment
3
Massachusetts Outdoor Heritage Foundation Inc Attn Susan Sacco
—
4
Kestrel Land Trust

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

Environment
5
Nashoba Conservation Trust

Acquire, preserve and maintain natural resources and wildlife habitat areas (land conservation).

Environment
6
Concord Land Conservation Trust

To acquire and protect land in Concord, MA for conservation purposes, habitat protection, and to provide passive recreational use by the public as well as to preserve Concord's traditional landscapes of woods, meadows and fields.

Environment
7
Royal River Conservation Trust

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…

Environment
8
Upper Saco Valley Land Trust

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…

Food & Nutrition
9
Alford Land Trust Inc

Open Space Preservation

Environment
10
Aspetuck Land Trust

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.

Environment
11
Presumpscot Regional Land Trust

We engage with communities to conserve, steward, and provide access to local lands and clean water for current and future generations to enjoy.

—
12
Sebasticook Regional Land Trust

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…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sudbury Valley Trustees Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

24 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. 24 of the 34 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/24
Grantees still filing
18/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

The Monadnock Conservancy: $111,854 · EnvironmentThe Monadnock ConservancyESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION: $108,722 · EnvironmentESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATIONBEAR-PAW REGIONAL GREENWAYS: $53,933 · EnvironmentBEAR-PAW REGIONAL GREENWAYSSUDBURY VALLEY TRUSTEES INC: $47,546 · EnvironmentSUDBURY VALLEY TRUSTEES INCKESTREL LAND TRUST INC: $30,000 · EnvironmentUPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC: $26,907 · EnvironmentMASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $25,993 · EnvironmentNORTH COUNTY LAND TRUST INC: $22,994 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $21,915 · EnvironmentHARRIS CENTER FOR CONSERVATION EDUCATION INC: $20,000 · EnvironmentAppalachian Mountain Club: $19,680 · Environment+7 more: $77,369 · Environment+7 moreFive Rivers Conservation Trust: $99,298 · OtherFive Rivers Conservation TrustPISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY: $92,870 · OtherPISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCYSOUTHEAST LAND TRUST: $56,827 · OtherSOUTHEAST LAND TRUSTCONSERVATION COMMISSION TOWN OF BROOKLINE NEW HAMPSHIRE: $22,052 · OtherCONSERVATION COMMISSION TOWN OF BROOKLIN…NELSON CONSERVATION COMMISSION: $13,528 · OtherTOWN OF BERLIN (BERLIN CONSERVATION COMMISSION): $12,500 · Other+7 more: $59,979 · Other+7 moreCANDID: $18,696 · PhilanthropySoutheast Land Trust of New Hampshire: $15,000 · PhilanthropyUPPER VALLEY TRAILS ALLIANCE: $33,091 · Education
Environment$566,913Other$357,054Philanthropy$33,696Education$33,091

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 budgetThe Monadnock Conservancy: $111,854 over 7y, 1.0% of budgetESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION: $108,722 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetFive Rivers Conservation Trust: $99,298 over 6y, 4.2% of budgetPISCATAQUOG LAND CONSERVANCY: $92,870 over 5y, 2.9% of budgetBEAR-PAW REGIONAL GREENWAYS: $53,933 over 4y, 3.4% of budgetSUDBURY VALLEY TRUSTEES INC: $47,546 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetUPPER VALLEY TRAILS ALLIANCE: $33,091 over 4y, 2.4% of budgetKESTREL LAND TRUST INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetUPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC: $26,907 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $25,993 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNORTH COUNTY LAND TRUST INC: $22,994 over 1y, 23% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $21,915 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHARRIS CENTER FOR CONSERVATION EDUCATION INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetAppalachian Mountain Club: $19,680 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCANDID: $18,696 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHANOVER CONSERVANCY: $17,230 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetMOUNT GRACE LAND CONSERVATION TRUST: $16,225 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetSoutheast Land Trust of New Hampshire: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetAUSBON SARGENT LAND PRESERVATION TRUST: $13,063 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAudubon Society of New Hampshire: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFrancestown Land Trust Inc: $5,851 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetNORTHEAST WILDERNESS TRUST CORPORATION: $5,000 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.

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 Charita…Fields Pond Foundatio…Adelard & Valeda Roy …Fidelity FoundationThe Nature ConservancyDavis Conservation Fo…Bafflin FoundationLand Trust Alliance I…An Environmental Trus…Allan B Roby & France…Rhoads Jr Jay-Environ…The Compass Fund
New Hampshire Charitable FoundationNH32.1× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely 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.

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 34 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 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 Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home