· Private foundation
Bellis Blauvelt Judson Foundation Inc
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2022–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k17 grants · $36k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA | $15,000 |
| NATIONAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL | $8,000 |
| MARY'S PLACE | $7,000 |
| MCGAW YMCA | $6,000 |
| LAMBERT HOUSE | $4,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,374 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,760 |
| PCFR | $1,500 |
| LEWA WILDLIFE CONSERVANCY | $1,000 |
| MEIJER GARDEN | $1,000 |
| WGVU | $1,000 |
| ST CECILIA | $1,000 |
| AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY | $500 |
| CARTER BROWN FUND | $500 |
| POMFRET SCHOOL | $250 |
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 (FY22–24, $23k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 89% 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.
16 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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 FY2024, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k 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
- YMYoung Mens Christian Assoc McGaw Inc3× · 2022–2024 · $19k · revenue +32%
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC2× · 2023–2024 · $11k · revenue +29%- LWLewa Wildlife Conservancy USA3× · 2022–2024 · $3k · revenue +7%
Funded once
- CACLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INCone grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue +8%
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue +79%- SCSIERRA CLUBone grant, 2023 · $5k
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.
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
To effectively and efficiently mitigate risks to the reliability and security of the western interconnection's bulk power system.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
MCF is a vibrant philanthropic community connecting, strengthening and mobilizing the power of philanthropy to advance prosperity and equity.
As a national leader in environmental health research and advocacy, toxic- free future uses the power of science, education, and activism, to drive strong laws and corporate responsibility that protect the health of all people and the…
Informing and educating the public and decision makers about environmental issues.
WEF's mission is inspiring the water community in pursuit of human and environmental well-being. WEF is a global environmental leader committed to water quality education and technical best practices. WEF connects water professionals;…
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
To promote public health, safety, and welfare through the improvement of the quality and quantity of drinking water and the development and furtherance of understanding of the problems relating thereto.
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
Bates is a college of the liberal arts and sciences, and is a coeducational, nonsectarian, residential college with special commitments to academic rigor, and to assuring in all of its efforts the dignity of each individual, and access to…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated and the most unlike its peers is The Wausaukee Charitable Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 35 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 PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds Young Mens Christian Assoc McGaw Inc ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds LAMBERT HOUSE ↗
- Who funds Lewa Wildlife Conservancy USA ↗
- Who funds WELCOMENST INC ↗
- Who funds KIDS' FOOD BASKET INC ↗
- Who funds POMFRET SCHOOL INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Daraja Education Fund ↗
- Who funds MANY HOPES INC ↗
- Who funds SEND IT ↗
- Who funds Environmental Traveling Companions ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Corporation ↗
- Who funds THE COLORADO COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds The Wausaukee Charitable Foundation ↗
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: The Bindon Foundation · The Bessemer Giving Fund · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Bellis Blauvelt Judson Foundation Inc 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.
- Children's Hospital Corporation — 10% 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.