Skip to content
Connecticut Association for Human Services Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Connecticut Association for Human Services Inc

The ct association for human services, a division of act, changes the lives of low-income children and families across connecticut by pioneering pathways from poverty to opportunity and from financial insecurity to capability and success.

$23k
Granted FY2022
1
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2022.

Community Improvement$26kPhilanthropy$24kRecreation & Sports$16kHuman Services$6k
02FY2022 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $8,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $23,129 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $15,129 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$8,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BURROUGHS COMMUNITY CENTER$8,000
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.

None of its grants could be placed against low income need for this view.

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 field
04the grantee network

5 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
5/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THAMES VALLEY COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $25,862 · Community ImprovementTHAMES VALLEY COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY ACTI…UNITED WAY OF CONNECTICUT INC: $18,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF CONNECTICUT INCHARTFORD FOUNDATION FOR PUBLIC GIVING: $5,775 · PhilanthropyHARTFORD FOUNDATION FOR PUBLIC GIVINGBURROUGHS COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $16,000 · Recreation & SportsBURROUGHS COMMUNITY CENTE…TEAM INC: $6,000 · Human ServicesTEAM INC
Community Improvement$25,862Philanthropy$23,775Recreation & Sports$16,000Human Services$6,000

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 budgetTHAMES VALLEY COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $25,862 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF CONNECTICUT INC: $18,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBURROUGHS COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $16,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetTEAM INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHARTFORD FOUNDATION FOR PUBLIC GIVING: $5,775 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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

William Caspar Graust…
William Caspar Graustein Memorial FundCT13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund

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 Connecticut Association for Human Services Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Connecticut Association for Human Services 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 84%
  • United Way of Connecticut Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Team Inc: 84% of income from government
  • Thames Valley Council for Community Action Inc: 83% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
3rely on government for over half their income
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 5 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2023) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Connecticut Association for Human Services’ 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