Skip to content
The Echo Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Echo 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.

$210k
Granted FY2025still arriving
15
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$100k
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Environment$903kAnimals$323kHealth$20kEducation$20kArts & Culture$16kCommunity Improvement$5k
02FY2025 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k8 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $92k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$5,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$23k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MASSACHUSETTS RIVERS ALLIANCE$100,000
AANE$20,000
MASS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS$20,000
CAPE ANN VERNAL POND TEAM$17,000
IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOC$15,000
MASS AUDUBON SOCIETY$10,000
THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT$10,000
BLUE HILL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT$5,000
IPSWICH HUMANE GROUP$3,000
NATIVE PLANT TRUST INC$2,500
SWEET PAWS RESCUE$2,000
PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM$2,000
MANCHESTER ESSEX CONSERVATION TRUST$1,500
CENTER FOR NORTHERN WOODLANDS EDUCATION$1,000
CANTEMUS CHAMBER CHORUS$500
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%ASPERGERAUTISM NETWORK INC: $20k → 8%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY - MASS CHAPTER: $3k → 16%CENTER FOR NORTHERN WOODLANDS EDUCATION: $2k → 10%BLUE HILL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $5k → 11%AANE: $20k → 8%CAPE ANN VERNAL POND TEAM: $40k → 10%NATIVE PLANT TRUST INC: $3k → 8%CAPE ANN VERNAL POND TEAM: $22k → 10%CAPE ANN VERNAL POND TEAM: $17k → 10%MASSACHUSETTS RIVERS ALLIANCE: $3k → 16%MASS AUDUBON SOCIETY: $11k → 8%SWEET PAWS RESCUE: $102k → 10%MASS AUDUBON SOCIETY: $11k → 8%TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS: $4k → 10%MASS AUDUBON SOCIETY: $11k → 8%ESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION: $100k → 10%MASS AUDUBON SOCIETY: $11k → 8%MANCHESTER ESSEX CONSERVATION TRUST: $5k → 10%MASS AUDUBON SOCIETY: $10k → 8%MANCHESTER ESSEX CONSERVATION TRUST: $4k → 10%MASSACHUSETTS RIVERS ALLIANCE: $100k → 8%MANCHESTER ESSEX CONSERVATION TRUST: $3k → 10%MASSACHUSETTS RIVERS ALLIANCE: $10k → 8%MANCHESTER ESSEX CONSERVATION TRUST: $3k → 10%MASSACHUSETTS RIVERS ALLIANCE: $6k → 8%NATIVE PLANT TRUST INC: $3k → 8%SWEET PAWS RESCUE: $202k → 10%OCEAN RIVER INSTITUTE: $3k → 8%MASSACHUSETTS RIVERS ALLIANCE: $6k → 8%MASS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS: $20k → 8%MASS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS: $20k → 8%IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOC: $115k → 10%MASS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS: $20k → 8%THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT: $55k → 10%MASS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS: $20k → 8%IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOC: $50k → 10%MASS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS: $20k → 8%3 SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT: $50k → 10%IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOC: $50k → 10%IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOC: $50k → 10%IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOC: $15k → 10%THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT: $10k → 10%IPSWICH HUMANE GROUP: $3k → 10%IPSWICH HUMANE GROUP: $3k → 10%IPSWICH HUMANE GROUP: $3k → 10%IPSWICH HUMANE GROUP: $3k → 10%PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM: $3k → 10%PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM: $3k → 10%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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 17 repeat orgs$199k to everyone else

17 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
5

Total granted

$1.1M
$174k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+25%
+26%

Still filing today

94%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentArts & CultureAnimalsHealthPublic Safety & DisasterFood & NutritionOther
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

  • Sweet Paws Rescue Inc
    5× · 2021–2025 · $309k · revenue +25%
  • IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $280k · revenue +285%
  • MA
    MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $100k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • ESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +26%
  • 3S
    3 SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
  • AF
    ASSOCIATION FOR AUTISM AND NEURODIVERSITY INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue +65%
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 Outdoor Heritage Foundation Inc Attn Susan Sacco
—
2
Wetlands Foundation
Environment
3
Cohasset Conservation Trust Inc
—
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
Maine Audubon Society

Maine Audubon works to conserve Maine's wildlife and habitat by engaging people of all ages in education, conservation, and action. We are helping the people of Maine become the nation's most informed and effective stewards of wildlife and…

Environment
6
Massachusetts Land Conservation Trust

Conservation and preservation of land.

Environment
7
The Norman Bird Sanctuary Trust

Our mission is to spark people's curiosity to explore, steward, and find peace and joy in nature. in service to this, norman bird sanctuary inspires, builds, and engages a community of stewards who preserve, protect, enjoy, and learn from…

Animals
8
Massachusetts Association of Conservatio

The organization represents 14 conservation districts. it is committed to build on partnerships with the state and federal government to protect and conserve the commonwealth's natural resources.

Environment
9
Wildlands Trust Inc

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…

Environment
10
Sudbury Valley Trustees Inc

Sudbury valley trustees, inc. ("the organization") works to protect natural areas and farmland for wildlife and people in the 36 communities that surround the sudbury, assabet, and concord rivers. the organization cares for some of the…

Environment
11
Newton Conservators Inc

Promote and preserve open space in Newton MA; function as local land trust (holding Conservation Easements for 8 city-owned parks and 1 private property); conduct educational walks and webinars for the public use of open spaces; improve…

—
12
Orleans Conservation Trust

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…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Trustees of Reservations; the most unlike its peers is Wgbh Educational Foundation. 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

21 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 21 of the 25 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
15/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: $280,000 · EnvironmentIPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATIONMassachusetts Rivers Alliance Inc: $125,000 · EnvironmentMassachusetts Rivers Alliance IncMASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS INC: $100,000 · EnvironmentMASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS INCESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION: $100,000 · EnvironmentESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATIONCAPE ANN VERNAL POND TEAM: $82,204 · EnvironmentCAPE ANN VERNAL POND TEAMMASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $54,000 · EnvironmentMASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC+5 more: $35,060 · EnvironmentSweet Paws Rescue Inc: $309,000 · AnimalsSweet Paws Rescue IncIPSWICH HUMANE GROUP INC: $13,000 · Animals3 SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT: $50,000 · OtherAANE: $20,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY - MASS CHAPTER: $4,250 · Other+2 more: $2,500 · OtherTHREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT INC: $65,000 · Food & NutritionASSOCIATION FOR AUTISM AND NEURODIVERSITY INC: $20,000 · HealthPEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM INC: $12,000 · Arts & CultureCANTEMUS: $2,500 · Arts & CultureWGBH Educational Foundation: $1,000 · Arts & CultureCENTER FOR NORTHERN WOODLANDS EDUCATION INC: $6,000 · Public Safety & DisasterBLUE HILL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $5,000 · Community Improvement
Environment$776,264Animals$322,000Other$76,750Food & Nutrition$65,000Health$20,000Arts & Culture$15,500Public Safety & Disaster$6,000Community Improvement$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSweet Paws Rescue Inc: $309,000 over 5y, 14% of budgetIPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: $280,000 over 5y, 5.6% of budgetMassachusetts Rivers Alliance Inc: $125,000 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS INC: $100,000 over 5y, 5.3% of budgetESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION: $100,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetCAPE ANN VERNAL POND TEAM: $82,204 over 5y, 51% of budgetTHREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT INC: $65,000 over 2y, 7.5% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $54,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetASSOCIATION FOR AUTISM AND NEURODIVERSITY INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetMANCHESTER ESSEX CONSERVATION TRUST: $15,560 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetIPSWICH HUMANE GROUP INC: $13,000 over 5y, 4.4% of budgetPEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM INC: $12,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetNATIVE PLANT TRUST INC: $10,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS: $6,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR NORTHERN WOODLANDS EDUCATION INC: $6,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetCANTEMUS: $2,500 over 5y, 1.4% of budgetOcean River Institute Inc: $2,500 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWGBH Educational Foundation: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWild Seed Project: $1,000 over 2y, 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.

Boston Foundation IncInstitution for Savin…Essex County Communit…New England Biolabs F…Analog Devices Founda…Ge Aerospace Foundati…The Pfizer Foundation…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…The Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …
Boston Foundation IncMA19.8× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boston Foundation Inc · Institution for Savings in Newburyport & Its Vicinity Charitable Foundation Inc · Essex County Community Foundation Inc · New England Biolabs Foundation · Analog Devices Foundation · Ge Aerospace Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift 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 The Echo Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Echo Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 60%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Ipswich River Watershed Association: 68% of income from government
  • Association for Autism and Neurodiversity Inc: 24% of income from government
  • Cantemus: 12% of income from government
  • Essex County Greenbelt Association: 8% of income from government
  • Native Plant Trust Inc: 3% of income from government
  • Peabody Essex Museum Inc: 3% of income from government
  • Three Sisters Garden Project Inc: 2% of income from government
  • The Trustees of Reservations: 2% of income from government
  • Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Wgbh Educational Foundation: 1% of income from government
  • Massachusetts Rivers Alliance Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
6get no government money at all
1rely 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 25 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 Echo’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