· Private foundation
Alexander Host Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k34 grants · $68k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $150k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB | $150,000 |
| BUZZARDS BAY COALITION | $10,000 |
| UPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST | $5,000 |
| MUSC FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| SAVE THE SOUND | $5,000 |
| SIPPICAN LANDS TRUST | $5,000 |
| CTLCV | $5,000 |
| GREENWICH LAND TRUST | $5,000 |
| NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL | $3,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE | $3,000 |
| UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS | $3,000 |
| HARVARD UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT | $2,500 |
| MARION INSTITUTE INC FROGFOOT FARM | $2,500 |
| GREAT MOUNTAIN FOREST CORP | $2,500 |
| LOON PRESERVATION COMMITTEE | $1,000 |
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 (FY17–21, $11k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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.
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 +54% since the first grant, against -27% for the ones you funded once.
47 repeat relationships — 35 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down.
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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- UVUPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC9× · 2017–2025 · $102k · revenue +28%
BUZZARDS BAY COALITION9× · 2017–2025 · $73k · revenue +83%- SLSIPPICAN LANDS TRUST INC9× · 2017–2025 · $38k · revenue +87%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $1k
- SISOUNDKEEPER INCone grant, 2017 · $100 · revenue -27%
- NTNH TIMBERLAND OWNERS ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2017 · $100
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 wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…
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…
Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…
The nantucket conservation foundation owns, protects, and stewards over 9,000 acres of land and coastal shoreline, conserves nantucket's rare and significant natural resources, and engages in impactful ecological research to inform…
The mission of the Whatcom Land Trust is to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural and open space lands in Whatcom County for future generations by securing interests in land and promoting land stewardship.
The franklin land trust works to conserve farms, forests, wildlands, and other natural resources significant to the quality of the environment, economy, and rural character of western massachusetts.
To protect and restore the ecological health of forest park and marquam nature park, maintain and enhance their extensive trails networks, promote equitable access, and inspire diverse community appreciation and stewardship of these iconic…
The adirondack council ensures the ecological integrity (clean water and air, wildlife habitat, etc.), wild character (solitude, scenic beauty, etc.), and vibrant communities of new york's six-million-acre adirondack park. the adirondack…
See schedule onylcv is a non-partisan policy making and political action organization that works to make environmental protection a top priority with elected officials, decision-makers and the voters by evaluating incumbent performance and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Greenwich Tree Conservancy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Granite State Woodland Institute. 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 39 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% 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.
35 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 35 of the 52 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
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 UPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds BUZZARDS BAY COALITION ↗
- Who funds THE GREENWICH LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds SIPPICAN LANDS TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds Great Mountain Forest Corporation ↗
- Who funds SAVE THE SOUND ↗
- Who funds New Hampshire Charitable Foundation ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds CHARITY GLOBAL INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds THE GREENWICH TREE CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds SOUNDWATERS INC ↗
- Who funds WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE EARTH ↗
- Who funds GREEN FINGERS GARDEN CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds LAND TRUST ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds GREENWICH POINT CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds FOOD & WATER WATCH ↗
- Who funds Loon Preservation Committee ↗
- Who funds GREENWICH GREEN & CLEAN INC ↗
- Who funds BRUCE MUSEUM INC ↗
- Who funds GREENWICH BOTANICAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds TABOR ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds THE MARITIME AQUARIUM AT NORWALK INC ↗
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: Malkin Fund Inc · The Old Stones Foundation Inc · Cornelia Cogswell Rossi Foundation Inc · Dr Joseph J Lawrence Trust Diana Serrell Trustee · Bucknall Family Foundation · Royce Family Fund Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Alexander Host 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.
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution — 63% of income from government
- Buzzards Bay Coalition — 37% of income from government
- Save the Sound — 37% of income from government
- Connecticut Farmland Trust Inc — 7% of income from government
- The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk Inc — 5% of income from government
- Soundwaters Inc — 4% of income from government
- Bruce Museum Inc — 0% of income from government
- Emerald Necklace Conservancy 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.