· Public charity
Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants Inc
The connecticut institute for refugees and immigrants, inc.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 1 grants below total $83,322 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,604,702 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,521,380 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE CENTER FOR FAMILY JUSTICE | $83,322 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $422k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 3% of those 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.
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.
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.
10 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- BOBUILDING ONE COMMUNITY CORP3× · 2020–2022 · $123k · revenue +96%
- CWCONNECTICUT WORKER CENTER INC2× · 2021–2022 · $59k · revenue +67%
- UCURBAN CONCEPTS INCORPORATED3× · 2020–2022 · $49k · revenue +624%
Funded once
- BWBrazilian Worker Center Incgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue +84%
- UUUNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION IN WESTPORT INCone grant, 2020 · $7k
- LCLIFEBRIDGE COMMUNITY SERVICES INCone grant, 2020 · $6k · revenue -5%
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.
The connecticut housing coalition works to expand housing opportunity and to increase the quantity and quality of affordable housing available to people with low and moderate incomes in connecticut through advocacy, education and…
In 2024, Inner City Law Center, ICLC, served over 3,400 people, helping vulnerable Angelenos to remain in their homes and recover nearly $20.5 million in financial benefits.
Statewide Legal Services of Connecticut Inc. SLS empowers low-income people in Connecticut to obtain justice by providing tools to address their civil legal needs. SLS provides its clients with high volume brief or in-depth legal advice…
The primary exempt purpose of ct legal rights project, inc. is to provide legal representation and advocacy for low income adults with psychiatric disabilities.
All activities conducted by the association are to enable it to:a. establish a better understanding between the members and companies in the construction and related industries.b. foster reasonable and just regulations by governments c.…
The Central Ohio Worker Center is a non-profit organization that educates, empowers, and advocates for and with low-wage and immigrant workers in Central Ohio.
Worker Justice Center of New York, Inc. (WJCNY) pusues juistice for those denied hian rights, with a focus on agricultural and other low-wage workers, through legal representation, community empowerment and advocacy for institutional…
Ensuring greater access to high-quality low-cost immigration legal services across the United States through local immigrant connection sites across the country. Our sites based in both rural and urban areas are established in…
Legal, immigration and community organizing
Latino Union works to defend the rights and dignity of contingent workers, including the right to immigrate, work, live free of oppression and violence, and provide for oneself and one's family.
Empower a statewide network of caring, consistent volunteer court appointed special advocates to advance the best interests of children who have experienced abuse or neglect so every child can find a safe, permanent home to thrive.
To deliver legal and social services to people and families who want to put down roots in the u.s. and cultivate welcoming communities that uphold our collective freedoms.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Connecticut Legal Services Inc and the most unlike its peers is Urban Concepts Incorporated. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 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 THE CENTER FOR FAMILY JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds BUILDING ONE COMMUNITY CORP ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT WORKER CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds URBAN CONCEPTS INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Make the Road New York ↗
- Who funds LOVE146 INC ↗
- Who funds University of New Haven ↗
- Who funds NEW LONDON HOMELESS HOSPITALITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds Brazilian Worker Center Inc ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT LEGAL SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds LIFEBRIDGE COMMUNITY SERVICES 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: Fairfield County's Community Foundation Inc · Connecticut Health Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants 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.
- Connecticut Worker Center Inc — 67% of income from government
- The Center for Family Justice Inc — 49% of income from government
- LOVE146 Inc — 49% of income from government
- New London Homeless Hospitality Center — 47% of income from government
- Lifebridge Community Services Inc — 32% of income from government
- Connecticut Legal Services Inc — 18% of income from government
- Brazilian Worker Center Inc — 6% of income from government
- University of New Haven — 2% 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 Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants Inc?
Find your warmest path to Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants 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.