Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Capital Area Substance Abuse Council Inc

To reduce the incidence of substance abuse in the North Central CT Region through research, planning, advocacy and coordination within each town and for the entire region

$151k
Granted FY2018
10
Grants FY2018
1
States reached
$11k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172018.

Health$127k
02FY2018 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 10 grants below total $84,339 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $151,349 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $67,010 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k7 grants · $52k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $32k
$8,973
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Town of Newington$11,163
Town of Windsor$10,842
Town of Farmington$10,342
Town of Avon$9,153
City of Hartford$8,973
Town of Canton$8,020
Town of Granby$8,020
Town of West Hartford$7,142
Town of Simsbury$5,342
Town of Wethersfield$5,342
02The need
03

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.

None of your grants could be placed against low income need for this view.

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$102k · 7 repeat orgs$25k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
3

Total granted

$102k
$25k

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

  • CO
    CITY OF HARTFORD
    2× · 2017–2018 · $18k
  • NH
    NEWINGTON HUMAN SERVICES
    2× · 2017–2018 · $17k
  • TO
    TOWN OF WINDSOR
    2× · 2017–2018 · $16k

Funded once

  • TO
    TOWN OF AVON
    one grant, 2018 · $9k
  • TO
    TOWN OF GRANBY
    one grant, 2018 · $8k
  • TO
    Town of Canton
    one grant, 2018 · $8k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field
04the grantee network

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2018.

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 20172018, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 10 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.

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

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

CITY OF HARTFORD — $17,946 · OtherCITY OF HARTFORDNEWINGTON HUMAN SERVICES — $16,826 · OtherNEWINGTON HUMAN SERVICESTOWN OF WINDSOR — $16,184 · OtherTOWN OF WINDSORTOWN OF FARMINGTON — $15,684 · OtherTOWN OF FARMINGTONTOWN OF WEST HARTFORD WEST HARTFORD PUBLIC LIBRARY — $14,284 · OtherTOWN OF WEST HARTFORD WEST HARTFORD PUBLIC LIBRARYTOWN OF SIMSBURY — $10,684 · OtherTOWN OF SIMSBURYTOWN OF WETHERSFIELD — $10,684 · OtherTOWN OF WETHERSFIELDTOWN OF AVON — $9,153 · OtherTOWN OF AVONTOWN OF GRANBY — $8,020 · OtherTOWN OF GRANBYTown of Canton — $8,020 · OtherTown of Canton
Other$127,485

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ your share of their budget
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.

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.

Amplify IncCT26.4× affinity10 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amplify Inc · Hartford Foundation for Public Giving · Center for Technology and Civic Life · North Central Area Agency on Aging · The Hometown Foundation Inc

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 10 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2019) is on record and reports $619 of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2018, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph