Skip to content
Stephen Edward Scarff Memorial Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Stephen Edward Scarff Memorial 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.

$5k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Environment$99kAnimals$35kArts & Culture$32kCivil Rights$8kRecreation & Sports$2kHuman Services$1kFood & Nutrition$250Other$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$114k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%Music for Minors: $5k → 7%Humane Society of Silicon Valley: $25k → 8%YMCA: $500 → 14%SPCA: $50 → 17%North Woods Animal Shelter: $10k → 13%Music for Minors: $2k → 7%Los altos community: $1k → 8%YMCA: $100 → 14%Bates Hall Prservation Socitey: $7k → 13%Music for Minors: $2k → 7%History Museum of Los Altos: $220 → 8%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $5k → 13%Music for Minors: $1k → 7%Indians for Collective Action: $8k → 8%Friends of Camp Batawagoma: $500 → 13%Second Harvest Food Bank: $200 → 7%Salvation Army: $200 → 8%Friends of Camp Batawagoma: $500 → 13%Second Harvest Food Bank: $50 → 7%Salvation Army: $200 → 8%Friends of Camp Batawagoma: $500 → 13%Fioli: $10k → 7%Salvation Army: $200 → 8%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $17k → 13%Salvation Army: $100 → 8%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $10k → 13%Salvation Army: $100 → 8%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $10k → 13%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $10k → 13%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $10k → 13%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $10k → 13%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $10k → 13%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $10k → 13%CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $7k → 13%Camp Batawagama: $1k → 13%Chicagan Lake Preservation Fund: $300 → 13%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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$112k · 6 repeat orgs$78k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +59% since the first grant, against -27% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
11

Total granted

$112k
$78k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+59%
-27%

Still filing today

33%
27%

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
AnimalsArts & CultureRecreation & SportsCivil RightsOther
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

  • CL
    CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND
    9× · 2017–2025 · $99k
  • MF
    MUSIC FOR MINORS INC
    3× · 2017–2021 · $10k · revenue +59%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF CAMP BATAWAGAMA
    3× · 2017–2022 · $2k · revenue -66%

Funded once

  • HS
    HUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEYgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +55%
  • LG
    Lena Grochowska Foundation
    one grant, 2023 · $15k
  • F
    Fioli
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 17 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
2/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUND: $99,000 · OtherCHICAGON LAKE PRESERVATION FUNDLena Grochowska Foundation: $15,000 · OtherLena Grochowska FoundationFioli: $10,000 · OtherFioliBates Hall Prservation Socitey: $7,000 · Other+8 more: $4,220 · OtherHUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY: $25,000 · AnimalsHUMANE SOCIETY SILIC…NORTHWOODS ANIMAL SHELTER: $10,000 · AnimalsNORTHWOODS ANIMAL SH…MUSIC FOR MINORS INC: $10,000 · Arts & CultureINDIANS FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION: $8,000 · Civil RightsFRIENDS OF CAMP BATAWAGAMA: $1,500 · Recreation & Sports
Other$135,220Animals$35,000Arts & Culture$10,000Civil Rights$8,000Recreation & Sports$1,500

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNORTHWOODS ANIMAL SHELTER: $10,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetMUSIC FOR MINORS INC: $10,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetINDIANS FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION: $8,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFRIENDS OF CAMP BATAWAGAMA: $1,500 over 3y, 1.0% 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 HUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY ↗
  • Who funds NORTHWOODS ANIMAL SHELTER ↗
  • Who funds MUSIC FOR MINORS INC ↗
  • Who funds INDIANS FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF CAMP BATAWAGAMA ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Stephen Edward Scarff Memorial Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Stephen Edward Scarff Memorial Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–5%
    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 Stephen Edward Scarff Memorial Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Stephen Edward Scarff Memorial 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 17 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 Stephen Edward Scarff Memorial’s 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