· Private foundation
The Evergreen Charitable Fund Inc co Albert Nierenberg
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k19 grants · $54k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $44k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $55k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Massachusetts Audubon Society | $55,000 |
| Haverford College | $12,000 |
| The Trustees of Reservations | $12,000 |
| Heifer Project International | $10,000 |
| Appalachian Mountain Club | $10,000 |
| The Cambridge School of Weston | $8,000 |
| Natural Resources Defense Council | $6,000 |
| Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue | $5,000 |
| BTABOLT Inc | $5,000 |
| Green Street Rescue | $4,000 |
| Environmental Defense Fund | $3,000 |
| Little Wanderers NYC | $3,000 |
| The Climate Reality Project | $3,000 |
| Earth Justice Legal Defense | $3,000 |
| Essex County Greenbelt Association | $3,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY22–24, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +37% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.
31 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k 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
MASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC8× · 2017–2024 · $286k · revenue +99%
THE TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS8× · 2017–2024 · $91k · revenue +50%
Appalachian Mountain Club8× · 2017–2024 · $49k · revenue +32%
Funded once
- HLHarvard-Kent Leadership Scholarshipone grant, 2021 · $8k
- ECEast Coast Greenway Allianceone grant, 2017 · $3k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $1k
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.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
The museum's mission statement is: "to discover, interpret, and disseminate - through scientific research and education - knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe."
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…
The climate institute is organized for the purpose of educating the general public and policy makers as to the gravity of potential climate change, exploring the policy implications of the latest scientific findings on climate modelling…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Founded in 1877, american humane association, dba american humane society (american humane) is committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals. our leadership programs are first to serve in promoting and nurturing the…
The adirondack council ensures the ecological integrity (clean water and air, wildlife habitat, etc.), wild character (solitude, scenic beauty, etc.), and vibrant communities of new york's six-million-acre adirondack park. the adirondack…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated and the most unlike its peers is Friends of City Square Park. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 44 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% 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 11% 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.
26 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. 26 of the 39 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 MASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS ↗
- Who funds CORPORATION OF HAVERFORD COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Appalachian Mountain Club ↗
- Who funds HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF CITY SQUARE PARK ↗
- Who funds THE CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL OF WESTON INC ↗
- Who funds YANKEE GOLDEN RETRIEVER RESCUE INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds GREEN STREET RESCUE ↗
- Who funds ESSEX COUNTY GREENBELT ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds THE MARITIME AQUARIUM AT NORWALK INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds LITTLE WANDERERS NYC INC ↗
- Who funds Grahamtastic Connection ↗
- Who funds EAST COAST GREENWAY ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds BRYN MAWR COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds PAN-MASSACHUSETTS CHALLENGE INC ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds CITY HARVEST INC ↗
- Who funds THE ADD IMPACT NETWORK 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.
Open a dossier: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 The Evergreen Charitable Fund Inc co Albert Nierenberg 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.
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Essex County Greenbelt Association — 8% of income from government
- The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk Inc — 5% of income from government
- The Trustees of Reservations — 2% of income from government
- Appalachian Mountain Club — 1% of income from government
- Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc — 1% of income from government
- Pan-Massachusetts Challenge Inc — 0% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Evergreen Charitable Fund Inc co Albert Nierenberg?
Find your warmest path to The Evergreen Charitable Fund Inc co Albert Nierenberg 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.