· Public charity
Chapel & York Foundation Inc
The foundation seeks to support valuable work done by charitable and educational organizations worldwide.
Read this first · the figures below need context
51% of Chapel & York Foundation Inc’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Trustees Of Dartmouth College, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 6 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2021, the last year Chapel & York Foundation Inc named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $336k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $336,207 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $24,500,141 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $24,163,934 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 · FY2021
- Under $10k1 grant · $6k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $58k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $272k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BOSTON COLLEGE - TRISH BARRIGAN | $219,395 |
| BOSTON COLLEGE | $52,223 |
| CENTER FOR EMERGING VISUAL ARTISTS | $21,678 |
| FOUNDATION FIGHTING BLINDNESS INC | $19,601 |
| CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY | $16,858 |
| ANATOLIA COLLEGE | $6,452 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 36% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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
Grants abroad, by region — $41M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: CHILDREN; HEALTH · ARTS AND CULTURE; EDUCATION · EDUCATION
Stated purpose: ENVIRONMENT · EDUCATION · HEALTH; SCIENCE; TECHNOLOGY
Stated purpose: ARTS AND CULTURE · HEALTH · EDUCATION
Stated purpose: EDUCATION · GENERAL SUPPORT
Stated purpose: EDUCATION; HUMAN SERVICES
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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 38% of Chapel & York Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +26% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.
7 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2021, 3 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call). Read against FY2021, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $153k 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
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE2× · 2021–2022 · $325k · revenue +26%- CMCarnegie Mellon University4× · 2020–2024 · $118k · revenue +35%
- ACANATOLIA COLLEGE TR UW XXXXX80072× · 2023–2024 · $73k · revenue +24% · 44% of their budget
Funded once
- FTFAIR TRIALS AMERICASone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +1%
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.
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…
At Roger Williams University, students are prepared to be thinkers and doers ready to solve challenging problems with innovative solutions. RWU offers robust offerings of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs across eight…
As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
Education and Research
Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
The trustees of the university of pennsylvania (the "university") sees itself as having a public service mission. in such regard, the university aims to provide a rich and diverse educational environment for its students; to pioneer…
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.
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
The principal objects of the University are the advancement of learning by teaching and research, and its dissemination by every means. We work as one Oxford bringing together our staff, students and alumni, our colleges, faculties,…
Wake Forest University, a 501(c)(3) institution of higher education, is dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the liberal arts and in graduate and professional education. The organization is comprised of seven constituent parts: Wake…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Carnegie Mellon University and the most unlike its peers is Anatolia College Tr Uw XXXXX8007. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 14 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 Trustees of Dartmouth College ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Carnegie Mellon University ↗
- Who funds Friends of Massey University ↗
- Who funds ANATOLIA COLLEGE TR UW XXXXX8007 ↗
- Who funds Health in Harmony ↗
- Who funds THE BARACK OBAMA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds RUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE FOUNDATION FIGHTING BLINDNESS INC ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR EMERGING VISUAL ARTISTS LTD ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF ANATOLIA COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds FAIR TRIALS AMERICAS ↗
- Who funds SHULE FOUNDATION 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: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Chapel & York 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.
- Trustees of Boston College — 3% of income from government
- Rutgers University Foundation — 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Chapel & York Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Chapel & York Foundation Inc 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.