· Private foundation
The Norcross Wildlife Foundation Inc
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k20 grants · $48k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $120k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MOUNT GRACE LAND CONSERVATION TRUST | $25,000 |
| TOWN OF MONSON | $25,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $23,000 |
| OPACUM LAND TRUSTMASSCONN SUSTAINABLE FOREST PROJECT | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| TOWN OF HOLLAND | $5,000 |
| TOWN OF MONSON | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,500 |
| WALES PUBLIC LIBRARY | $2,500 |
| BILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC | $2,500 |
| ATLANTIC WHITE SHARK CONSERVANCY | $2,500 |
| NIPMUC INDIAN COUNCIL NIPMUC CULTURAL HUNT & FISH | $2,500 |
| WALES SENIOR CENTER | $2,500 |
| EAGLE EYE INSTITUTE | $2,500 |
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 (FY20–20, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 5% of The Norcross Wildlife Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 96% of the giving stays in MA; read by stated purpose it is 92% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +52% since the first grant, against +33% for the ones you funded once.
21 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 13 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $73k 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
- TOTHE OPACUM LAND TRUST INC2× · 2020–2025 · $27k · revenue +132%
- BOBILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC6× · 2020–2025 · $14k · revenue +199%
- LLLINCOLN LAND CONSERVATION TRUST3× · 2022–2025 · $10k · revenue +52%
Funded once
- BABERKSHIRE AGRICULTURAL VENTURES INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $3k · revenue +42%
- HFHOLYOKE FOOD AND EQUITY COLLECTIVEone grant, 2021 · $3k
- SCSUSU COMMUNITY FARM VIA RETREAT FARMone grant, 2022 · $3k
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.
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…
Conservation and preservation of land.
The nantucket conservation foundation owns, protects, and stewards over 9,000 acres of land and coastal shoreline, conserves nantucket's rare and significant natural resources, and engages in impactful ecological research to inform…
Protect Connecticuts farmland for agricultural use by purchasing and accepting donations of agricultural conservation easements
Protect land along rivers, lakes and wetlands of vt; protect public access, wildlife habitat, scenic natural beauty, and ecological integrity.
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…
Kennebunk Land Trust's mission is to permanently conserve and steward land to benefit natural and human communities.
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…
The mission of Midcoast Conservancy is to protect vital lands and waters on a scale that matters and to inspire wonder and action on behalf of all species and the Earth.
To foster the sustainable use of our natural and historic resources for the benefit of all generations through the conservation and stewardship of the farmlands, woodlands, and water in our region of massachusetts.
Merrimack river watershed council's mission is to protect the merrimack river watershed and promote the wise use of its watershed. this is accomplished through water quality monitoring, land restoration and protection, watershed education…
The mission of Islesboro Islands Trust is to enhance the quality of residents' lives through the preservation of open space, educate all residents as to the value of the island's natural ecosystems, and act as an environmental advocate on…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Trustees of Reservations and the most unlike its peers is Paradise City Dragon Boat Inc. 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 26 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) — 3% 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.
34 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. 34 of the 63 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 THE OPACUM LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds MOUNT GRACE LAND CONSERVATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds BILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds LINCOLN LAND CONSERVATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds MASSACHUSETTS LAND TRUST COALITION ↗
- Who funds COUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT INC ↗
- Who funds CATSKILL MOUNTAINKEEPER INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY INVOLVED IN SUSTAINING AGRICULTURE INC ↗
- Who funds EAGLE EYE INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds ATLANTIC WHITE SHARK CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds BERKSHIRE AGRICULTURAL VENTURES INC ↗
- Who funds NEWHOUSE WILDLIFE RESCUE CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds THE VERMONT CENTER FOR ECOSTUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds BLACK FARMER FUND INC ↗
- Who funds SOUL FIRE FARM INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds The Point Community Development Corporation ↗
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: Patagoniaorg · Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts · The Nature Conservancy · Davis Conservation Foundation · Boston Foundation Inc · Eastern Bank Foundation · Living Springs Foundation · Bafflin Foundation · The Beveridge Family Foundation · Tides Center · Maine Community Foundation Inc · National Fish and Wildlife 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 Norcross Wildlife Foundation Inc 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.
- Connecticut River Watershed Council Inc — 40% of income from government
- Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture Inc — 35% of income from government
- Holyoke Rows Inc — 21% of income from government
- Franklin Land Trust Inc — 7% of income from government
- Atlantic White Shark Conservancy Inc — 5% of income from government
- The Vermont Center for Ecostudies Inc — 4% of income from government
- Third Sector New England Inc — 3% of income from government
- Eagle Eye Institute Inc — 3% of income from government
- Sheriff's Meadow Foundation — 2% of income from government
- The Trustees of Reservations — 2% of income from government
- Berkshire Agricultural Ventures Inc — 1% of income from government
- Community Adolescent Resource and Education Center Inc — 0% of income from government
- Biodiversityworks 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 Norcross Wildlife Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Norcross Wildlife Foundation Inc 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.