· Private foundation
The Schooner Foundation
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 $10k20 grants · $80k
- $10k–50k23 grants · $400k
- $50k–250k61 grants · $6.0M
- $250k+25 grants · $13M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NAACP | $2,000,000 |
| NAACP | $1,500,000 |
| The Nature Conservancy | $1,350,000 |
| Trustees of Boston University | $1,000,000 |
| Brigham and Women's Hospital | $625,000 |
| Here Right Matters Foundation | $590,000 |
| Brigham and Women's Hospital | $500,000 |
| Trustees of Boston University | $500,000 |
| State Leadership Project | $500,000 |
| American Ireland Fund | $444,485 |
| Turquoise Mountain Foundation | $350,000 |
| Partners in Health a Non Profit Corporation | $300,000 |
| NAACP | $258,000 |
| UCSF Foundation | $250,000 |
| Syrian American Medical Society Foundation | $250,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $3.7M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 60% 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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 9% of The Schooner Foundation’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, 37% of the giving stays in MA; read by stated purpose it is 34% — 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 +45% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
150 repeat relationships — 86 still active in FY2024, 64 since wound down; 13 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, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.2M 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
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY8× · 2017–2024 · $7.9M · revenue +45%- SGSEED GLOBAL HEALTH7× · 2017–2024 · $2.3M · revenue +99%
- SASYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · $2.1M · revenue +45%
Funded once
- UOU of California - HEALone grant, 2021 · $250k
PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECTgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $250k · revenue +69%- HFHopewell Foundationone grant, 2023 · $250k
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 open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
The global impact investing network, inc. is dedicated to increasing the scale and effectiveness of impact investing to solve systemic problems facing people and the planet. impact investments are investments made into companies,…
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
Partnersglobal (partners) works through a global network to support local leaders and create partnerships that transform conflict, strengthen democratic institutions, and achieve sustainable development.
Common impact's mission is to strengthen the capacity of social change organizations, enabling them to better run and scale their programs. through its partnership with companies, common impact taps into the business skills and expertise…
Our mission is to invest in and accelerate the development of the most promising future leaders in biomedical research with global impact.
Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.
The center for international policy is a woman-led, progressive, independent nonprofit center for research, education, and advocacy working to advance a more peaceful, just, and sustainable u.s. approach to foreign policy. through…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Roddenberry Foundation. 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 21 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
195 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. 195 of the 257 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds SEED GLOBAL HEALTH ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds MYRIAD USA INC ↗
- Who funds SYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds THE RYR-1 FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds TENNESSEE INNOCENCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds HERE RIGHT MATTERS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds The Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Foundation for National Progress ↗
- Who funds NYAYA HEALTH ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds STATE LEADERSHIP PROJECT ↗
- Who funds TURQUOISE MOUNTAIN FOUNDATION (US) ↗
- Who funds VET VOICE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds KARAM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MADRE INC ↗
- Who funds SHINING HOPE FOR COMMUNITIES INC ↗
- Who funds PLOUGHSHARES FUND INC ↗
- Who funds DOTHOUSE HEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds LAST MILE HEALTH ↗
- Who funds DREAMORG ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN OVERSIGHT INC ↗
- Who funds THE RODDENBERRY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE ↗
- Who funds RIAN IMMIGRANT CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Fortify Inc ↗
- Who funds OCEAN RESEARCH & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE MARSHALL PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN IRELAND FUND (DBA THE IRELAND FUNDS AMERICA/THE IRELAND FUNDS) ↗
- Who funds Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ↗
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: Boston Foundation Inc · Indian River Community Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Healing Trust Formerly Baptist Healing Hospital Trust · Quail Valley Charities Inc · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · Bernard a Egan Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund · Hopewell Fund · Liberty Mutual Foundation Inc · James Ford Bell Foundation · NEO Philanthropy 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 The Schooner 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.
- Bridge Over Troubled Waters Inc — 32% of income from government
- White Bird Clinic — 29% of income from government
- Fathers Uplift Incorporated — 22% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Silent Spring Institute Inc — 12% of income from government
- Dothouse Health Inc — 11% of income from government
- Children's Hospital Corporation — 10% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Bma Tenpoint Inc — 7% of income from government
- Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research — 7% of income from government
- Greenroots Inc — 1% of income from government
- Breaktime United Inc — 1% of income from government
- Indian River Land Trust Inc — 0% of income from government
- Beyond Benign Inc — 0% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% of income from government
- Boston Foundation 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 Schooner Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Schooner 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.