Fields Pond Foundation Inc.

Fields Pond Foundation is a small, family-directed grantmaker (EIN 04-3196041, Auburndale, MA) that funds exclusively community-based nature and land conservation work across New England and upper New York State. Its board — Rhoda R. Cohen, Russell A. Cohen, Brian H. Rehrig, and officers Jeanette Fritz, Laurel Callahan, and Walter Angoff — reviews proposals directly at regular meetings rather than through a professional program staff, and officer compensation has trended down from $150,640 in FY2020 to $91,250 in FY2023, consistent with a lean, closely-held operation. The foundation is best suited to grassroots and mid-sized land trusts, watershed associations, and municipal conservation commissions rather than large national environmental organizations: of 169 tracked grants totaling $1.9M, the average award is just $11,250, and the DB's top-50 grantees are almost entirely regional land trusts (Essex County Greenbelt Association, Harwich Conservation Trust, Sudbury Valley Trustees) rather than brand-name national funders. First-time applicants should treat this as a relationship-first funder: the guidelines explicitly invite an informal conversation before a full proposal, and complex or unusual projects should open with a one-page concept outline reviewed at a board meeting before a full application is invited. The foundation's stated philosophy — that land conservation is valuable both intrinsically and as a way to build public support for future conservation through direct human engagement — means proposals should foreground public access (trails, overlooks, interpretive signage) alongside pure acquisition. The foundation explicitly welcomes joint applications from multiple coordinating organizations and will consider challenge, matching, or conditional grants, so campaigns with a multi-funder capital stack (as seen repeatedly in the grantee purposes, e.g. Kamon Farm and Messer Farm acquisitions funded across several installments) are a strong fit. It also explicitly welcomes applications from municipal government agencies (e.g., Town of Hampton, Town of New London NH appear as grantees), a posture many peer land conservation funders do not take.

Total giving has held in a narrow band for over a decade: $555,670 (FY2011) up to $839,784 (FY2020), landing at $802,371 in FY2023 against $10.4M in total assets — a payout in the 6-8% range, above the 5% federal minimum, indicating the foundation intentionally spends down more than required rather than building endowment. Grants paid (the direct grant-check figure, excluding related giving costs) was $494,775 in FY2023, $456,000 in FY2022, and $506,800 in FY2021 — consistent, unspectacular volume. Per the foundation's own published typical-grant-size data, the median award is $10,000 (average $11,663) across a stated range of $1,000-$25,000, though the DB's aggregated grantee totals (which sum multiple grants per organization over multiple years) show cumulative relationships reaching $150,000 (Essex County Greenbelt Association, 6 grants) and $60,000 (Harwich Conservation Trust, 5 grants) — evidence the foundation builds multi-year relationships with a modest core of repeat grantees rather than one-off gifts. Geographically, of 169 grants tracked, 87 (51%) went to Massachusetts organizations, 31 (18%) to Maine, 17 (10%) to New Hampshire, 14 (8%) to Vermont, 8 (5%) to New York, with small numbers in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and DC — confirming Massachusetts and Maine are the practical center of gravity despite the six-state New England footprint on paper. By program area, virtually all tracked funding is land conservation: acquisition (the largest category by dollar value, frequently $25,000-$50,000 per project across multi-year installments), trail and public-access construction (smaller grants, often $15,000-$21,500), and a modest slice for capacity-building and sector convenings (Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition, Land Trust Alliance, roughly $25,000-$26,300 cumulative each). Net investment income has been volatile and market-driven ($1.3M in FY2022 vs. $218K in FY2020), but grant payout has stayed remarkably stable regardless, suggesting the board smooths distributions rather than reacting to short-term portfolio swings.

Fields Pond is an order of magnitude smaller in assets and giving than the large community foundations that also fund conservation in the region, and unlike them it has no dedicated program staff, formal LOI portal, or published deadline cycle — it operates more like a family foundation with a single, durable programmatic focus. Its niche advantage for applicants is precisely that narrowness and informality: a well-matched land trust can reach a decision-making director directly by phone or email rather than navigating a multi-stage competitive review, and the foundation's willingness to fund municipal governments and multi-funder capital campaigns fills a gap that larger, more bureaucratic funders in the region often don't.

No leadership changes, restructurings, or public announcements were identified for 2025-2026 — Fields Pond Foundation does not issue press releases or maintain a news section, consistent with its low-profile, closely-held operating style. The most concrete recent signal is procedural: its FY2024 tax return was filed August 8, 2025, and its own grants.htm page carries a March 2026 update listing new awards, including $5,000 to Adirondack Land Trust and $25,000 to Bull Creek Common Lands — both consistent in size and subject matter with a decade of prior giving. IRS/Candid aggregator data shows 43 awards recorded in the most recent full reporting year, in line with the historical count of roughly 40-50 grants annually implied by the DB's 169-grant, multi-year sample. There is no indication of a new program area, a change in geographic scope, or a shift away from the rolling/informal application model. For applicants, the practical takeaway is that Fields Pond is a stable, continuity-focused funder: the same board (Cohen, Rehrig, Fritz, Angoff, Callahan) has run it for years, and the safest planning assumption is that FY2026-2027 giving will track the same ~$700K-$800K annual total, $500-$25,000 grant-size band, and land-trust-heavy grantee mix seen throughout its history.

Lead with a phone call or email to the foundation office (781-899-9990 / info@fieldspond.org) before drafting anything — the guidelines explicitly invite informal pre-application contact, and for a foundation this small, a real conversation with a director is both possible and valuable. If your project is unusual, large, or spans multiple phases (e.g., a multi-year land acquisition), open with a one-page concept outline rather than a full proposal; outlines go to the board at regular meetings, and only ideas that land get invited to submit a full application — this avoids wasting a full proposal on a mismatched pitch. Use the Common Grant Application format from Philanthropy Massachusetts (formerly Associated Grant Makers) if your organization already has one on file; if not, keep any custom proposal to 3-4 pages plus attachments — padding a proposal beyond that signals unfamiliarity with the funder's stated preference for concision. Always include maps for any project involving acquisition, easements, or public-access improvements; this is a specifically named, non-optional attachment, and its absence is a common and easily avoidable mistake. Explicitly name the funding gap you're filling and why it would go unmet otherwise — the guidelines ask directly for 'evidence that the funds will be used to address an important need that would otherwise remain unmet,' and generic mission-alignment language without that specific gap-framing is a weak fit. Avoid requesting deficit coverage, general operating support, or asks that would make Fields Pond your predominant funder — all three are explicitly disqualifying per the foundation's own restrictions. If your project has multiple funding sources or is a joint effort among coordinating organizations, say so clearly and describe the match/leverage — the foundation explicitly favors collaborative, challenge, and matching grants, and the grantee data shows repeated multi-installment support for phased campaigns (e.g., the Ausbon Sargent Land Preservation Trust's Messer Farm expansion, funded across separate acquisitions). Municipal agencies should not assume they're ineligible — several towns (Hampton NH, New London NH) appear as direct grantees. Finally, calibrate the ask: given a $10,000 median and $25,000 practical ceiling, requesting amounts well above that range without a strong multi-year or capital-campaign rationale is likely to be scaled down or declined outright.