Skip to content
Cecelia's Adventures Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Cecelia's Adventures Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$11k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

Health$7kEducation$4kPhilanthropy$4kRecreation & Sports$3kHuman Services$3kCivil Rights$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$587
Median grant
2
States reached
$22k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRIENDS OF DANA FARBER$3,500
LUMIND IDSC FOUNDATION$2,100
SPECIAL OLYMPICS$2,100
ATTLEBORO SCHOLARSHIP FUND$1,000
KENNEDY DONNOVON CENTER$587
KENNEDY DONNOVON CENTER$510
21FRIENDS$500
NATIONAL DOWN SYNDROME SOCIETY$500
SPECIAL OLYMPICS$138
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 (FY22–25, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%KENNEDY DONOVAN CENTER: $1k → 7%Kennedy Donovan Center: $889 → 7%KENNEDY DONNOVON CENTER: $587 → 7%KENNEDY DONNOVON CENTER: $510 → 7%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 34% of Cecelia's Adventures Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 73% of the giving stays in MA; by stated purpose, 47%.

Cecelia's Adventures Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$19k · 8 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
4

Total granted

$19k
$5k

Still filing today

75%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
Recreation & SportsHealthHuman ServicesEducationOther
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

  • SO
    SPECIAL OLYMPICS MASSACHUSETTS INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $3k · revenue +16%
  • KC
    KENNEDY-DONOVAN CENTER INC
    3× · 2022–2025 · $3k · revenue +11%
  • AS
    ATTLEBORO SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION I
    2× · 2022–2023 · $2k · revenue +237%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $3k
  • MG
    Mass General Down Syndrome Program
    one grant, 2022 · $550
  • MD
    MA DOWN SYNDROME CONGRESS
    one grant, 2024 · $500
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
05the 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 13 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
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FRIENDS OF DANA FARBER: $4,600 · OtherFRIENDS OF DANA FARBERIndividual grant recipient: $3,300 · OtherIndividual grant recipientLuMind IDSC Foundation: $2,100 · OtherLuMind IDSC FoundationATTLEBORO SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $2,000 · OtherATTLEBORO SCHOLARSHIP FUNDNATIONAL DOWN SYNDROME SOCIETY: $1,500 · OtherNATIONAL DOWN SYNDROME SOCIETYMASSACHUSETTS DOWN SYNDROME CONGRESS INC: $1,050 · OtherMASSACHUSETTS DOWN SYNDROME CONGRESS INCMass General Down Syndrome Program: $550 · Other+2 more: $750 · OtherSPECIAL OLYMPICS MASSACHUSETTS INC: $3,378 · Recreation & SportsSPECIAL OLYMPIC…KENNEDY-DONOVAN CENTER INC: $3,066 · Human ServicesKENNEDY-DONOV…ATTLEBORO SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION I: $2,000 · Education21 FRIENDS INC: $1,000 · Health
Other$15,850Recreation & Sports$3,378Human Services$3,066Education$2,000Health$1,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS MASSACHUSETTS INC: $3,378 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetKENNEDY-DONOVAN CENTER INC: $3,066 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLuMind IDSC Foundation: $2,100 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetATTLEBORO SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION I: $2,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNATIONAL DOWN SYNDROME SOCIETY: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS DOWN SYNDROME CONGRESS INC: $1,050 over 2y, 0.0% of budget21 FRIENDS INC: $1,000 over 2y, 1.3% 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.

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.

Paypal Charitable Giv…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Paypal Charitable Giving FundDC10.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Cecelia's Adventures Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cecelia's Adventures 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 62%
  • Kennedy-Donovan Center Inc: 62% of income from government
  • Special Olympics Massachusetts Inc: 1% 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)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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.

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 13 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Cecelia's Adventures’ 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