Skip to content
The Summer Hill Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Summer Hill Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$676k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Environment$5.0MArts & Culture$261kRecreation & Sports$225kFood & Nutrition$115kPhilanthropy$100kHousing & Shelter$50kEducation$30kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $661k
$86,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$20M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Trust for Public Land$100,000
The Wyndham Land Trust Inc$100,000
Nature Conservancy of Connecticut$100,000
Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust$100,000
Historic Huguenot Street$86,000
Pacific Forest Trust$75,000
Joshuas Trust$50,000
Individual grant recipient$50,000
Madison Land Conservation Trust$15,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY19–23, $115k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%The Dudley Foundation: $50k → 12%The Dudley Foundation: $30k → 12%The Dudley Foundation: $25k → 12%The Dudley Foundation: $10k → 12%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.
$5.0M · 16 repeat orgs$898k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +136% since the first grant, against -8% for those funded once.

16 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
13

Total granted

$5.0M
$898k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+136%
-8%

Still filing today

81%
62%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentArts & CultureHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • RL
    RANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TRUST INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $840k · revenue +390%
  • THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
    5× · 2019–2025 · $640k · revenue +112%
  • ST
    SAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE
    6× · 2019–2024 · $625k · revenue +130%

Funded once

  • PI
    PATHFINDERS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $200k · revenue -69%
  • ML
    MANCHESTER LAND CONSERVATION TRUST INC
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue -86%
  • BH
    BLUE HILL HERITAGE TRUST
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +14%
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 Land Conservation Trust

Conservation and preservation of land.

Environment
2
Redding Land Trust Inc

The primary mission of Redding Land Trust is to preserve the natural resources of the Town of Redding, CT and to promote the scientific and educational study of local and natural resources, and to acquire, by gift or purchase, land or…

Environment
3
Land Conservancy of Ridgefield Inc

The Land Conservancy of Ridgefield, Inc. ("the Land Conservancy"), founded in 1967, preserves and protects, for the general benefit of the public, Ridgefield, Connecticut's natural resources including land and water resources, the plant…

Environment
4
Wilton Land Conservation Trust

Protecting, enhancing and conserving open spaces encompassing meadows, woodlands, wetlands, and waterways in the town of wilton ct.

Environment
5
Hilltown Land Trust Inc

Hilltown land trust conserves and stewards land through strong relationships to ensure clean water, wildlife habitat, climate resilience, recreational opportunities, and healthy farmland for the benefit of all.

Environment
6
Harford Land Trust Inc

The preservation of land and conservation of natural resources for public enjoyment and passive recreation.

Environment
7
Stamford Land Conservation Trust Inc

To obtain lands through donation or purchase and to protect and preserve them. While preserving we are improving the sustainable of wildlife, water tables and overall quality of our natural habitat.

Environment
8
Haddam Land Trust Inc

Preservation of natural resources in the town of haddam, connecticut.

Environment
9
Kestrel Land Trust Inc

Kestrel land trust inc. 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
10
Royal River Conservation Trust

The royal river conservation trust (rrct) is a regional land trust working primarily in seven maine municipalities. the trust owns,cares for, and stewards land and conservation easements to protect land and water resources for the general…

Environment
11
Farmington Land Trust

The Farmington Land Trust Inc protects open space in the town of Farmington CT through the acquisition of open space, stewardship of acquired land, education of the public about the importance of open space and advocacy that ensures…

Environment
12
Brewster Conservation Trust

Land conservation

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northeast Wilderness Trust Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Deacon John Grave Foundation Inc. 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, 2017–2025.

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. 21 of the 29 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
14/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TRUST INC: $840,000 · EnvironmentRANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TRUST INCTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $640,000 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE: $625,000 · EnvironmentSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUEWYNDHAM LAND TRUST INC: $450,000 · EnvironmentWYNDHAM LAND TRUST INCMADISON LAND CONSERVATION TRUST: $415,000 · EnvironmentMADISON LAND CONSERVATION TRUSTAVALONIA LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $276,750 · EnvironmentAVALONIA LAND CONSERVANCY INCNEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION INC: $250,000 · EnvironmentNEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION INCNORTHEAST WILDERNESS TRUST CORPORATION: $216,000 · Environment+5 more: $370,000 · Environment+5 moreNature Conservancy of Connecticut: $550,000 · OtherNature Conservancy of Co…The Pacific Forest Trust Incorporated: $200,000 · OtherThe Pacific Forest Trust…Individual grant recipient: $125,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipie…MANCHESTER LAND CONSERVATION TRUST INC: $100,000 · OtherMANCHESTER LAND CONSERVA…Joshuas Trust: $100,000 · OtherJoshuas TrustNorth Branford Land Trust: $93,000 · OtherNorth Branford Land Trus…Stanton-Davis Homestead: $50,000 · Other+4 more: $85,000 · Other+4 moreHUGUENOT HISTORICAL SOCIETY NEW PALTZ NY: $136,000 · Arts & CultureMADISON HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $80,200 · Arts & CultureDEACON JOHN GRAVE FOUNDATION INC: $14,500 · Arts & CulturePATHFINDERS INC: $200,000 · Recreation & SportsDUDLEY FOUNDATION INC: $115,000 · Human Services
Environment$4,082,750Other$1,303,000Arts & Culture$230,700Recreation & Sports$200,000Human Services$115,000

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 budgetRANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TRUST INC: $840,000 over 6y, 6.5% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $640,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE: $625,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetWYNDHAM LAND TRUST INC: $450,000 over 4y, 32% of budgetMADISON LAND CONSERVATION TRUST: $415,000 over 4y, 64% of budgetAVALONIA LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $276,750 over 5y, 6.8% of budgetNEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION INC: $250,000 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetNORTHEAST WILDERNESS TRUST CORPORATION: $216,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetThe Pacific Forest Trust Incorporated: $200,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetPATHFINDERS INC: $200,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetHUGUENOT HISTORICAL SOCIETY NEW PALTZ NY: $136,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetDUDLEY FOUNDATION INC: $115,000 over 4y, 34% of budgetMANCHESTER LAND CONSERVATION TRUST INC: $100,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetBLUE HILL HERITAGE TRUST: $100,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetMIDDLESEX LAND TRUST: $100,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetWOODIE WHEATON LAND TRUST: $100,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetMADISON HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $80,200 over 2y, 21% of budgetGREATER LOVELL LAND TRUST INC: $50,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetGROTON OPEN SPACE ASSOCIATION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetTHE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSERVANCY: $20,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetDEACON JOHN GRAVE FOUNDATION INC: $14,500 over 2y, 18% 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.

Bafflin FoundationFields Pond Foundatio…Maine Community Found…Davis Conservation Fo…Ibm International Fou…The Pfizer Foundation…Fidelity FoundationConnecticut Land Cons…John Sage FoundationOnion FoundationConnecticut Humanitie…Hartford Foundation f…
Bafflin FoundationRI22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Bafflin Foundation · Fields Pond Foundation Inc · Maine Community Foundation Inc · Davis Conservation Foundation · Ibm International Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Fidelity Foundation · Connecticut Land Conservation Council Inc · John Sage Foundation · Onion Foundation · Connecticut Humanities Council Inc · Hartford Foundation for Public Giving

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 Summer Hill Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Summer Hill Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 50%
  • New England Forestry Foundation Inc: 88% of income from government
  • Madison Land Conservation Trust: 68% of income from government
  • Groton Open Space Association Inc: 50% of income from government
  • Avalonia Land Conservancy Inc: 21% of income from government
  • Northeast Wilderness Trust Corporation: 2% of income from government
  • Wyndham Land Trust Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
5get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
3rely 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 29 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 Summer Hill’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