Loading…

CHARLES M AND MARY D GRANT FDN XXXXX0004

Foundation Dossiers

· Private foundation

CHARLES M AND MARY D GRANT FDN XXXXX0004

This foundation accepts unsolicited grant applications.

$345k

Granted FY2024

8

Grants

7

Communities

$55k

Largest

01What you fundRead

03Your edgeRead

04Your fieldRead

05Through PlinthRead

01What you fund

01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 44% of CHARLES M AND MARY D GRANT FDN XXXXX0004’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2020

—

2021

against domesticdomestic violence

2022

appalachia

2023

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

$10k–50k6 grants · $240k
$50k–250k2 grants · $105k

$40,000

Median grant

7

States reached

$9.0M

Total assets

Largest grants

WORLD SAVVY INC$55,000
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP$50,000
Enterprise Community Partners$40,000
THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH FUND$40,000
CENTER FOR NONPROFIT$40,000
RURAL ACTION$40,000
ACC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION$40,000
AMERICAN RIVERS$40,000

02The need

04

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY20–23, $90k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9% — the area typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

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, United Way ALICE — 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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$1.2M · 15 repeat orgs$640k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +151% since the first grant, against +63% for the ones you funded once.

15 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15

15

Total granted

$1.2M

$495k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+151%

+63%

Still filing today

67%

60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $145k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Crime & LegalEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementEducationHuman ServicesPublic BenefitOther

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

RA
RURAL ACTION
4× · 2021–2024 · $160k · revenue +244%
LC
LOUISIANA CENTER FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
3× · 2020–2023 · $105k · revenue +4%
Enterprise Community Partners
2× · 2023–2024 · $80k · revenue +153%

Funded once

MA
MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATION FOR
one grant, 2020 · $65k
IA
INVEST APPALACHIAgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $60k · revenue +196%
NC
NATURAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUNDgraduated
one grant, 2020 · $40k · revenue +538%

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

04Your field

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.

1

Appalachian Citizens Law Center Inc

ACLC is a nonprofit law firm that engages in strategic litigation and policy work in the area of mine safety and health, environmental protection, legacy cost of extractive industries on the people, land and economy of the Central…

Crime & Legal

2

Arkansas Public Policy Panel Inc

Ar public policy panel is a statewide organization dedicated to achieving social and economic justice by organizing citizen groups around the state, educating and supporting them to be more effective and powerful, and linking them with one…

Environment

3

Public Interest Law Initiative

PILI engages, inspires and empowers those advancing equal access to justice.

Crime & Legal

4

Asian Americans Advancing Justice

Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Atlanta's mission is to protect and promote the civil and human rights of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders in Georgia and the Southeast through policy advocacy, legal services,…

Human Services

5

West Virginia Community Action Partnersh

West virginia community action partnership is an alliance of community action agencies that supports and strengthens our members, advocates for low-income and families and promotes partnerships.

Community Improvement

6

Atlanta Committee for Progress Inc

ACP is a group committed to identifying and providing leadership on selected issues important to driving the economic development of the city of Atlanta and for which the ACP's active involvement will make a major difference. The ACP has a…

—

7

Georgia Justice Project Inc

Georgia justice project (gjp) strengthens our community by demonstrating a better way to represent and support individuals in the criminal justice system and reduce barriers to reentry. gjp promotes innovative change through direct legal…

Crime & Legal

8

Ky Access to Justice Commission Inc

Provided access to the courts and high-quality legal representation for people with low and moderate incomes living in kentucky.

Crime & Legal

9

Tallatoona Community Action Partnership

Alleviate poverty in georgia by providing sound intervention strategies & selected direct services.

Community Improvement

10

Holler Health Justice Inc

Organizing at the intersections of racial, economic, and reproductive justice, Holler Health Justice builds power with Appalachian communities and individuals most disproportionately affected by health inequities, including Black,…

Civil Rights

11

American Civil Liberties Union of

The american civil liberties union of kentucky (aclu) is freedom'swatchdog, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities todefend the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people bythe constitutions of the united…

—

12

Georgia Center for Opportunity Inc

Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) is an independent, non-partisan think tank dedicated to increasing opportunity and improving the quality of life for all Georgians.

Education

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Enterprise Community Partners Inc and the most unlike its peers is Georgia Healthy Family Alliance Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/22

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,543

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

05the grantee network

21 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

1

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

11

Early backer (in before they grew)

21/21

Grantees still filing

20/21

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$904,000Crime & Legal$270,000Community Improvement$240,000Environment$210,000Human Services$90,000Civil Rights$60,200International$55,000

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.

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.

New Venture FundDC14.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: New Venture Fund · Mountain Association for Community · Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Truist Foundation Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · The Community Foundation for Greater · Tides Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good

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 organisation CHARLES M AND MARY D GRANT FDN XXXXX0004 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: HOPE FOR APPALACHIA.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~16 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 6 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

6 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 472796944 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on HOPE FOR APPALACHIA, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 16 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 29% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Charles M and Mary D Grant Fdn Xxxxx0004?

Find your warmest path to Charles M and Mary D Grant Fdn Xxxxx0004 through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

More from the funding graph

The regranting layer

51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary

The DAF merry-go-round

$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds

Strange bedfellows

the named clusters of US funding

funders cluster by geography, not ideology

where grant money is based, and what stays home

State money flows

the interactive map of money crossing state lines