Skip to content
William a and Edna C Silverman Charitable Fund 2038107 at a glance

· Private foundation

William a and Edna C Silverman Charitable Fund 2038107

Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$105k
Granted FY2026still arriving
7
Grants FY2026still arriving
4
States reached
$28k
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.

Food & Nutrition$65kRecreation & Sports$58kHuman Services$33kHealth$8kYouth Development$8kScience & Tech$8kEducation$8kCivil Rights$2k
02FY2026 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2026

  • Under $10k2 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $91k
$14,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$143k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DARTMOUTH CLASS OF 1968$28,000
UPPER VALLEY TRAILS ALLIANCE$21,000
NYU GROSSMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE$14,000
MT ASCUTNEY OUTDOORS$14,000
SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY$14,000
STANFORD MEDICAL CENTER$7,000
GOOD NEIGHBOR HEALTH CLINICS$7,000
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 (FY23–25, $29k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%LISTEN COMMUNITY SERVICES: $18k → 10%LISTEN COMMUNITY SERVICES: $8k → 10%LISTEN COMMUNITY SERVICES: $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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$244k · 7 repeat orgs$50k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2026, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
4

Total granted

$244k
$22k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-4%
0%

Still filing today

71%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25’26
Recreation & SportsFood & NutritionEducationHuman ServicesScience & TechHealthOther
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

  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY
    6× · 2021–2026 · $64k · revenue -4%
  • UV
    UPPER VALLEY TRAILS ALLIANCE
    4× · 2023–2026 · $53k · revenue +4%
  • DC
    DARTMOUTH CLASS OF 1968
    2× · 2025–2026 · $36k

Funded once

  • MOUNT WASHINGTON OBSERVATORY
    one grant, 2025 · $8k · revenue 0%
  • MP
    MENTORING PROJECT OF THE UPPERVALLEY INC
    one grant, 2025 · $8k
  • TR
    THE RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE
    one grant, 2025 · $4k
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
Mount Washington Valley Trails Association

Mwv trails is a nh non-profit dedicated to the creation of a sustainable off-road non-motorized trail network in the mount washington valley of new hampshire, focusing on public use trails designed for mountain bike, trail running and…

Recreation & Sports
2
Connecticut Valley Sno-Riders Inc

Connecticut valley sno-riders, inc. is a volunteer organization founded in 1973 which maintains more than 80 miles of groomed snowmobile trails in vermont.

—
3
Bennington County Meals Program

Provide quality, nutritious and creative meals to individuals age sixty years and older; as well as, disabled residents of Bennington County, Vermont. This is accomplished through a community meal program and home deliveries to those…

Food & Nutrition
4
Upper Valley Humane Society Inc

UVHS improves quality of life for people and pets through an innovative animal shelter and adoption center and through services that reduce suffering, support wellness, and foster compassion.

Animals
5
Cooperation Vermont

The mission of cooperation vermont is to build thriving community economic and enviromental democracy.

Community Improvement
6
Meals on Wheels of Lamoille County Inc

Meals on Wheels of Lamoille Countys mission is to improve health and enhance the quality of life for our community elders by providing nutrition meals and social interaction.

Community Improvement
7
Community Access Television Inc

JAM's mission is to build community through the media arts in the Upper Valley of VT and NH.

Arts & Culture
8
350 New Hampshire

To stop the climate crisis by building grassroots support for a just transition to renewable energy and an end to fossil fuel use and expansion. We envision a society with a renewable energy economy that works for all people, where all…

Environment
9
Energy Action Network Inc

The mission of energy action network (ean) is to support vermont in making evidence-based energy and climate decisions that are grounded in high-quality data and analysis, and collaboratively developed for effective and durable progress.

Environment
10
Maine GearShare

To provide access to outdoor gear and know-how through a collaborative, equity-centered approach.

Recreation & Sports
11
Methow Valley Trails Collaborative

Enhancing sustainable trail experiences in the Methow Valley.

Environment
12
Mount Snow Adaptive Sports Inc

Adaptive Sports at Mount Snow is a volunteer-driven non-profit that provides adaptive sports, recreational opportunities and educational experiences to the Mount Snow community and its visitors throughout the year. Adaptive Sports at Mount…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Listen Lebanon in Service to Each Neighbor; the most unlike its peers is Second Harvest of Silicon Valley. 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

9 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. 9 of the 14 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DARTMOUTH CLASS OF 1968: $35,500 · OtherDARTMOUTH CLASS OF 1968NYU GROSSMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: $22,000 · OtherNYU GROSSMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINEYAD EZRA: $14,500 · OtherYAD EZRAMENTORING PROJECT OF THE UPPERVALLEY INC: $8,000 · OtherMENTORING PROJECT OF THE UPPERVALLE…STANFORD MEDICAL CENTER: $7,000 · OtherSTANFORD MEDICAL CENTERTHE RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE: $4,000 · OtherSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $64,000 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST OF SILICO…UPPER VALLEY TRAILS ALLIANCE: $53,000 · EducationUPPER VALLEY TRAILS …VERMONT ADAPTIVE SKI AND SPORTS: $25,500 · Recreation & SportsVERMONT ADAPTIV…Mt Ascutney Outdoors Inc: $14,000 · Recreation & SportsMt Ascutney Out…LISTEN Lebanon in Service to Each Neighbor: $29,000 · Human ServicesLISTEN Leba…MOUNT WASHINGTON OBSERVATORY: $8,000 · Science & TechGood Neighbor Health Clinic Inc: $7,000 · HealthTHE CIVIL CONVERSATIONS PROJECT: $2,000 · Civil Rights
Other$91,000Food & Nutrition$64,000Education$53,000Recreation & Sports$39,500Human Services$29,000Science & Tech$8,000Health$7,000Civil Rights$2,000

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 budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $64,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetUPPER VALLEY TRAILS ALLIANCE: $53,000 over 4y, 4.9% of budgetLISTEN Lebanon in Service to Each Neighbor: $29,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetVERMONT ADAPTIVE SKI AND SPORTS: $25,500 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetYAD EZRA: $14,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetMt Ascutney Outdoors Inc: $14,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetMOUNT WASHINGTON OBSERVATORY: $8,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE CIVIL CONVERSATIONS PROJECT: $2,000 over 1y, 2.6% 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.

Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA8.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 William a and Edna C Silverman Charitable Fund 2038107 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from William a and Edna C Silverman Charitable Fund 2038107. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 11%
  • Vermont Adaptive Ski and Sports: 11% of income from government
  • Upper Valley Trails Alliance: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 14 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on William a and Edna C Silverman Charitable Fund 2038107’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