Skip to content
A&M Charitable Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

A&M Charitable Foundation Inc

Its FY2023 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$14k
Granted FY2023
2
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$7k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2023.

Health$79kEducation$6kHuman Services$3kYouth Development$3kHousing & Shelter$2kRecreation & Sports$2kFood & Nutrition$1kPublic Benefit$1kOther$0
02FY2023 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$7,281
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VARIOUS CHARITABLE ORGANI$7,281
NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CH$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 (FY22–22, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, 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%WEST SUBURBAN YMCA: $1k → 8%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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$82k · 7 repeat orgs$15k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2023, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
16

Total granted

$82k
$15k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+66%

Still filing today

43%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23
HealthHuman ServicesHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyOther
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

  • NE
    NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CH
    2× · 2022–2023 · $25k
  • TN
    THE NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CHILDREN INC
    4× · 2018–2021 · $25k · revenue +28%
  • VC
    Various Charitable Organizations
    3× · 2019–2021 · $17k

Funded once

  • MS
    McDonough Scholarship Fund
    one grant, 2019 · $3k
  • MN
    McDonough Nurses Education Fund
    one grant, 2020 · $2k
  • RR
    Robby Robertson Memorial Golf Tournament
    one grant, 2020 · $2k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 23 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CH: $24,700 · OtherNEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CHTHE NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CHILDREN INC: $24,555 · OtherTHE NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CHILDREN INCVarious Charitable Organizations: $16,578 · OtherVarious Charitable OrganizationsVARIOUS CHARITABLE ORGANI: $11,139 · OtherVARIOUS CHARITABLE ORGANI+14 more: $16,555 · Other+14 moreHANNAH KANE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $1,500 · PhilanthropyWINCHESTER HOSPITAL: $1,000 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $100 · HealthWEST SUBURBAN YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION: $1,000 · Human ServicesCARITAS COMMUNITIES INC: $100 · Housing & Shelter
Other$93,527Philanthropy$1,500Health$1,100Human Services$1,000Housing & Shelter$100

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 budgetTHE NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CHILDREN INC: $24,555 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetWoburn Council of Social Concern Inc: $1,805 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHANNAH KANE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetWINCHESTER HOSPITAL: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWEST SUBURBAN YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCARITAS COMMUNITIES INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $100 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds THE NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CHILDREN INC ↗
  • Who funds Woburn Council of Social Concern Inc ↗
  • Who funds HANNAH KANE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds WINCHESTER HOSPITAL ↗
  • Who funds WEST SUBURBAN YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds CARITAS COMMUNITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗

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.

Cambridge Savings Cha…Arbella Insurance Fou…The Pfizer Foundation…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Cambridge Savings Charitable Foundation IncMA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Cambridge Savings Charitable Foundation Inc · Arbella Insurance Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 A&M Charitable Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from A&M Charitable Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
  • The New England Center for Children Inc: 3% of income from government
  • Winchester Hospital: 1% of income from government
  • West Suburban Young Men's Christian Association: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get 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 · 0–15%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to A&M Charitable Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to A&M Charitable 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.

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 23 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on A&M’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