Skip to content
Cecil Mauger Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Cecil Mauger Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$80k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$32k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Philanthropy$150kEducation$64kHuman Services$55kCommunity Improvement$48kFood & Nutrition$47kRecreation & Sports$37kArts & Culture$28kPublic Safety & Disaster$26kOther$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $57k
$7,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LICKING COUNTY FOUNDATION$32,245
LICKING COUNTY COALITION OF CARE$15,000
HARTFORD LIBRARY ASSOC$10,000
TOGETHER WE GROW INC$7,500
LICKING COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY$5,000
FURNITURE BANK OF CENTRAL OHIO$5,000
JOHN & CHRISTINE WARNER FD FOR$5,000
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 (FY18–24, $46k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 23% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS: $11k → 15%ST VINCENT HAVEN: $20k → 10%BUCKEYE VALLEY FAMILY YMCA: $10k → 10%ST VINCENT DE PAUL HOUSING FACILITIES: $4k → 10%ST VINCENT HAVEN: $2k → 10%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.

58%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$328k · 11 repeat orgs$234k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +109% since the first grant, against +19% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
22

Total granted

$328k
$194k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+109%
+19%

Still filing today

45%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $40k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEducationCommunity ImprovementRecreation & SportsEnvironmentYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • ND
    NEWARK DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
    4× · 2017–2024 · $40k · revenue +755%
  • SV
    ST VINCENT DE PAUL HOUSING FACILITIES INC
    3× · 2018–2024 · $25k · revenue +279%
  • TW
    TOGETHER WE GROW INC
    4× · 2018–2025 · $24k · revenue +109%

Funded once

  • OH
    OLD HOME STRETCH MATING FUND
    one grant, 2024 · $25k
  • NR
    NEWARK ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue -88%
  • GC
    GRANVILLE CHRISTIAN ACADEMYgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +80%
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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Licking County Coalition for Housing Inc

Through partnership, guiding those in need to sustainable housing.

Housing & Shelter
2
United Way of Licking County Inc

Improving people's lives in licking county, ohio by raising, prioritizing, awarding and monitoring funds allocated to programs that demonstrate success in the areas of education, income, health, and basic needs.

Philanthropy
3
Grow Licking County

To lessen the burdens of county government and to alleviate poverty in the local area by decreasing unemployment and increasing economic opportunities for the residents of licking county.

Community Improvement
4
Licking County Chamber of Commerce

The licking county chamber of commerce is a business organization that supports our member businesses and advances the economic well being of the licking county community.

—
5
Licking County Aging Program

To improve the quality of life for licking county seniors by contributing to their independence and healthy lifestyles.

—
6
Licking County Board of Realtors in

Promote higher business standards in realtors of licking county

—
7
Licking County Foundation

The mission of licking county foundation is to improve the quality of life for all citizens of licking county and to distribute earnings from permanent charitable assets to benefit the entire community.

—
8
Lutheran Social Services of Central Ohio Delaware Housing Inc

See schedule oto create a better world by serving people in need by operating food pantries, homeless shelters, a domestic violence shelter, affordable housing communities, senior living, assisted living and skilled care facilities, a home…

—
9
Licking County Foundation Inc

The mission of licking county foundation is to improve the quality of life for all citizens of licking county and to distribute earnings from permanent charitable assets to benefit the entire community.

Philanthropy
10
Licking Land Trust

The mission of the licking land trust is the preservation and permanent protection of central ohio green spaces, wetlands, woods, farmlands, riparian corridors, and scenic vistas, and education about the importance of green spaces and…

—
11
Ashland Assisted Living Inc

To create a better world by serving people in need by operating food pantries, homeless shelters, a domestic violence shelter, affordable housing communities, senior living, assisted living and skilled care facilities, a home health care…

Human Services
12
Long Island Community Hospital At Nyu Langone Health

The goals and objectives of the corporation are as follows:(a) to operate and maintain a nonsectarian, general hospital at one or more locations for the furnishing of inpatient, ambulatory, restorative, preventative and emergency medical…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Licking County Humane Society; the most unlike its peers is St Vincent De Paul Housing Facilities Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

19 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. 19 of the 38 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
12/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LICKING COUNTY FOUNDATION: $103,701 · OtherLICKING COUNTY FOUNDATIONLCF for Mauger Charitable Strategic: $41,303 · OtherLCF for Mauger Charitable StrategicOLD HOME STRETCH MATING FUND: $25,000 · OtherOLD HOME STRETCH MATING FUNDNEWARK MIDLAND THEATER: $20,000 · OtherNEWARK MIDLAND THEATERNEWARK ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION: $20,000 · OtherNEWARK ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATIONAMERICAN RED CROSS OF EAST CENTRAL OHIO: $15,000 · OtherTHE WORKS OHIO CENTER: $15,000 · Other+18 more: $111,555 · Other+18 moreST VINCENT DE PAUL HOUSING FACILITIES INC: $25,464 · Human ServicesST VINCENT DE…LICKING CO COALITION OF CARE: $15,000 · Human ServicesLICKING CO CO…American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $10,828 · Human ServicesAmerican Nati…Licking County Family YMCA: $10,000 · Human ServicesLicking Count…FURNITURE BANK OF CENTRAL OHIO: $5,000 · Human ServicesFURNITURE BAN…NEWARK DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS: $40,000 · Community ImprovementGRANVILLE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY: $20,000 · EducationNORTHRIDGE ATHLETIC BOOSTERS OF LICKING COUNTY OHIO INC: $10,000 · EducationNEWARK CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT FUND: $5,000 · EducationTOGETHER WE GROW INC: $23,500 · EnvironmentTHE FOOD PANTRY NETWORK OF LICKING COUNTY: $20,000 · Food & NutritionBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF COLUMBUS INC: $18,750 · Youth DevelopmentCAMP O BANNON OF LICKING COUNTY INC: $7,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$351,559Human Services$66,292Community Improvement$40,000Education$35,000Environment$23,500Food & Nutrition$20,000Youth Development$18,750Recreation & Sports$7,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEWARK DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS: $40,000 over 4y, 4.2% of budgetST VINCENT DE PAUL HOUSING FACILITIES INC: $25,464 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetTOGETHER WE GROW INC: $23,500 over 4y, 4.3% of budgetNEWARK ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetTHE FOOD PANTRY NETWORK OF LICKING COUNTY: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGRANVILLE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY: $20,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF COLUMBUS INC: $18,750 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetLICKING CO COALITION OF CARE: $15,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $10,828 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLicking County Family YMCA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMENTAL HEALTH AMERICA OF LICKING COUNTY: $10,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetCAMP O BANNON OF LICKING COUNTY INC: $7,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetLICKING COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNEWARK CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT FUND: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHOSPICE OF CENTRAL OHIO: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLICKING COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $2,338 over 1y, 2.7% 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.

Licking County Founda…First Federal Foundat…The John and Mary Alf…Park National Corpora…The Lindorf Family Fo…The Englefield Founda…Licking Memorial Heal…Columbus FoundationEnergy Cooperative Ro…The Lefevre FoundationThe Patricia R and He…The O'Neill Foundation
Licking County Foundation IncOH41× affinity17 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Licking County Foundation Inc · First Federal Foundation · The John and Mary Alford Foundation · Park National Corporation Foundation · The Lindorf Family Foundation · The Englefield Foundation · Licking Memorial Health Foundation · Columbus Foundation · Energy Cooperative Roundup Foundation Inc · The Lefevre Foundation · The Patricia R and Herbert J Murphy Foundation · The O'Neill 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 Cecil Mauger Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cecil Mauger Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 Cecil Mauger Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to Cecil Mauger Charitable Trust 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 38 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 Cecil Mauger’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