Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Stephen & Karla Forgiel Charitable 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.

$71k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 48% of STEPHEN & KARLA FORGIEL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $1k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $70k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$625k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$10,000
FISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC$10,000
22 MOHAWKS CORP$10,000
FISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC$10,000
HOMES FOR OUR TROOPS INC$10,000
FISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC$10,000
PROJECT NEW HOPE INC$10,000
SWIMMING WITH A MISSION INC$1,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY23–25, $29k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%22 MOHAWKS CORP: $10k → 7%SWIMMING WITH A MISSION INC: $1k → 7%Mohawks Corp: $10k → 7%Mohawks Corp: $8k → 7%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$339k · 5 repeat orgs$29k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
2

Total granted

$339k
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
+241%

Still filing today

80%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $11k 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
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterPublic BenefitHealthOther

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

  • HOMES FOR OUR TROOPS INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $127k · revenue +89%
  • FH
    FISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $98k · revenue +32%
  • PN
    PROJECT NEW HOPE INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $30k · revenue +42%

Funded once

  • NN
    NAMI NEW HAMPSHIREgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +241%
  • NR
    NAMI Rhode Island
    one grant, 2019 · $8k · revenue +13%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field
04the grantee network

7 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 9 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
7/7
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

FISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC — $97,500 · OtherFISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INCIndividual grant recipient — $57,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient — $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNAMI NEW HAMPSHIRE — $10,000 · OtherNAMI NEW HAMPSHIREHOMES FOR OUR TROOPS INC — $126,973 · Housing & ShelterHOMES FOR OUR TROOPS INCPROJECT NEW HOPE INC — $30,000 · Public BenefitPROJECT N…22 MOHAWKS CORP — $27,500 · Human ServicesSWIMMING WITH A MISSION INC — $1,000 · Human ServicesNAMI Rhode Island — $7,500 · Health
Other$175,000Housing & Shelter$126,973Public Benefit$30,000Human Services$28,500Health$7,500

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetHOMES FOR OUR TROOPS INC — $126,973 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetFISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC — $97,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT NEW HOPE INC — $30,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budget22 MOHAWKS CORP — $27,500 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetNAMI NEW HAMPSHIRE — $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNAMI Rhode Island — $7,500 over 1y, 3.4% of budget
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 HOMES FOR OUR TROOPS INC
  • Who funds FISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC
  • Who funds PROJECT NEW HOPE INC
  • Who funds 22 MOHAWKS CORP
  • Who funds NAMI NEW HAMPSHIRE
  • Who funds NAMI Rhode Island
  • Who funds SWIMMING WITH A MISSION 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.

Eastern Bank FoundationMA13.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Eastern Bank Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Stephen & Karla Forgiel Charitable 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 10%
  • 22 Mohawks Corp10% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
typical government reliance, FY2025

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Stephen & Karla Forgiel Charitable Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Stephen & Karla Forgiel Charitable 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 9 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph