Skip to content

· Private foundation

Concrete Foundation Inc

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.

$4k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it funds
0182% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Philanthropy$4.0MFood & Nutrition$13kCommunity Improvement$6kArts & Culture$3kRecreation & Sports$2kEnvironment$1kYouth Development$694Human Services$610Other$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,056
Median grant
1
States reached
$116M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ALBANY COMMUNITY TRUST$2,056
HARDWICK AREA FOOD PANTRY$1,580
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 (FY17–19, $719) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%RESOURCE: $25 → 9%NORTHEAST KINGDOM YOUTH SERVICES: $364 → 12%NORTHEAST KINGDOM YOUTH SERVICES: $330 → 12%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.

1%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$26k · 7 repeat orgs$4.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +71% since the first grant, against +69% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
15

Total granted

$26k
$4.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+71%
+69%

Still filing today

71%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Food & NutritionHuman ServicesEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • HA
    HARDWICK AREA FOOD PANTRY INC
    5× · 2017–2025 · $7k · revenue +71%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY INC
    3× · 2017–2022 · $6k · revenue +619%
  • PO
    PROTECT OUR WINTERS
    2× · 2017–2018 · $1k · revenue +661%

Funded once

  • FC
    FIDELITY CHARITABLE - CONCRETE GIVING ACCOUNT
    one grant, 2021 · $4.0M
  • W
    WONDERARTS
    one grant, 2019 · $3k
  • VF
    VERMONT FARM-TO-SCHOOL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $1k · revenue +69%
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
Cooperation Vermont

The mission of cooperation vermont is to build thriving community economic and enviromental democracy.

Community Improvement
2
Community Harvest of Central Vermont

We bring our community together through gleaning to recover surplus food produced on area farms to feed those with limited access to nutritious, fresh local food, and in the process help the community to gain a greater awareness and…

Food & Nutrition
3
Vermont Farmers Market Education Center

To support the local food system through access, infrastructure and education

Education
4
Vermont Fresh Network Corporation

Advancing relationships among farmers, chefs, and consumers to grow markets and eat more locally grown food.

Community Improvement
5
Alliance for Vermont Communities Inc

The mission of alliance for vermont communities, inc. is to protect working farms, forests and communities of central vermont and to promote responsible development that will sustain the rural heritage and values for present and future…

—
6
Lamoille Community Food Share Inc

The mission of lamoille community food share is to help support and improve the physical well-being of individuals who might otherwise go hungry. to this end, we provide supplemental food free of charge in a supportive environment,…

Food & Nutrition
7
Cooperation Vermont Community Land Trust

The mission of cooperation vermont community land trust is to reclaim the commons.

Community Improvement
8
Community Capital of Vermont

To help small businesses and lower income entrepreneurs prosper through the provision of flexible business financing.

Community Improvement
9
Vermont Foodbank

To gather and share quality food and nurture partnerships so that no one in vermont will go hungry.

Food & Nutrition
10
Vermont Community Loan Fund

Investing in people and communities to create a just and thriving vermont

Housing & Shelter
11
Vermont Grass Farmers Association

To promote, manage, and oversee grazing outreach and education programs in Vermont.

Environment
12
Community Action Service Team Inc

The organization's mission is to support community based service for waterbury, vt area residents through the waterbury area food shelf and the waterbury good neighbor fund.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Salvation Farms Inc; the most unlike its peers is Hardwick Area Food Pantry 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

10 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. 10 of the 22 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FIDELITY CHARITABLE - CONCRETE GIVING ACCOUNT: $4,000,000 · OtherFIDELITY CHARITABLE - CONCRETE GIVING ACCOUNT+12 more: $8,211 · OtherHARDWICK AREA FOOD PANTRY INC: $7,324 · Food & NutritionVERMONT FARM-TO-SCHOOL INC: $1,000 · Food & NutritionSalvation Farms Inc: $398 · Food & NutritionALBANY COMMUNITY TRUST INC: $7,771 · Community ImprovementCENTER FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY INC: $5,504 · EnvironmentPROTECT OUR WINTERS: $1,472 · EnvironmentST JOHNSBURY AREA YOUTH SERVICE BUREAU: $694 · Human ServicesRESOURCE A NONPROFIT COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE INC: $25 · Human ServicesTHE WINDOW DRESSERS INC: $200 · Housing & Shelter
Other$4,008,211Food & Nutrition$8,722Community Improvement$7,771Environment$6,976Human Services$719Housing & Shelter$200

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetALBANY COMMUNITY TRUST INC: $7,771 over 6y, 1.8% of budgetHARDWICK AREA FOOD PANTRY INC: $7,324 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetCENTER FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY INC: $5,504 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetPROTECT OUR WINTERS: $1,472 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetVERMONT FARM-TO-SCHOOL INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY ROWING INC: $400 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSalvation Farms Inc: $398 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRESOURCE A NONPROFIT COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE INC: $25 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds ALBANY COMMUNITY TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds HARDWICK AREA FOOD PANTRY INC ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY INC ↗
  • Who funds PROTECT OUR WINTERS ↗
  • Who funds VERMONT FARM-TO-SCHOOL INC ↗
  • Who funds ST JOHNSBURY AREA YOUTH SERVICE BUREAU ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY ROWING INC ↗
  • Who funds Salvation Farms Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE WINDOW DRESSERS INC ↗
  • Who funds RESOURCE A NONPROFIT COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE INC ↗

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.

The Vermont Community FoundationVT21.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Vermont Community Foundation · Ben & Jerry's Foundation Inc · High Meadows Fund Inc · Lintilhac Foundation Inc · National Life Group Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Concrete Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Concrete Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Salvation Farms Inc: 26% of income from government
  • Center for an Agricultural Economy Inc: 12% of income from government
  • Vermont Farm-to-School Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Community Rowing Inc: 2% of income from government
  • St Johnsbury Area Youth Service Bureau: 2% of income from government
  • Resource a Nonprofit Community Enterprise Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
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 22 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 Concrete’s filings →

More from the funding graph