Skip to content
Crow Hill Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Crow Hill Foundation

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.

$255k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$1.3MHealth$616kEducation$219kArts & Culture$10kYouth Development$7k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $225k
$75,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SO NEW ENGLAND$150,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND$75,000
GEORGE SCHOOL$30,000
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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GEORGE SCHOOL: $30k → 6%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CT: $66k → 17%GREENWICH LAND TRUST: $10k → 9%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SO NEW ENGLAND: $150k → 12%GEORGE SCHOOL: $20k → 6%BOYS CLUB OF NY: $5k → 17%GREENWICH LAND TRUST: $10k → 9%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SO NEW ENGLAND: $70k → 12%GEORGE SCHOOL: $20k → 6%GREENWICH LAND TRUST: $10k → 9%CONNECTICUT FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $130k → 12%GEORGE SCHOOL: $15k → 6%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $100k → 17%GREENWICH LAND TRUST: $10k → 9%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NE: $60k → 12%GEORGE SCHOOL: $15k → 6%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $100k → 17%GREENWICH LAND TRUST: $10k → 9%CONNECTICUT FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $90k → 12%GEORGE SCHOOL: $15k → 6%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $90k → 17%GREENWICH LAND TRUST: $10k → 9%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NE: $55k → 12%GEORGE SCHOOL: $15k → 6%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $80k → 17%FUTURE FIVE: $5k → 9%CONNECTICUT FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $80k → 12%GEORGE SCHOOL: $15k → 6%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $80k → 17%FUTURE FIVE: $5k → 9%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NE: $55k → 12%GEORGE SCHOOL: $15k → 6%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $80k → 17%FUTURE FIVE: $5k → 9%CONNECTICUT FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $80k → 12%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $80k → 17%FUTURE FIVE: $5k → 9%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NE: $55k → 12%FUTURE 5: $5k → 9%CONNECTICUT FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $80k → 12%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NE: $55k → 12%GREENWICH LIBRARY: $5k → 9%CONNECTICUT FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $80k → 12%GREENWICH LIBRARY: $5k → 9%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NE: $50k → 12%GREENWICH LIBRARY: $5k → 9%GREENWICH LIBRARY: $5k → 9%GREENWICH LIBRARY: $5k → 9%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.1M · 10 repeat orgs$66k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
1

Total granted

$2.1M
$66k

Still filing today

70%
0%

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
EnvironmentEducationYouth DevelopmentArts & CultureHealthOther
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

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED
    9× · 2017–2025 · $745k · revenue +202%
  • ST
    SAVE THE SOUND
    6× · 2017–2022 · $540k · revenue +93%
  • PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND INC
    6× · 2018–2023 · $330k · revenue +30%

Funded once

  • PP
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CT
    one grant, 2017 · $66k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 11 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $745,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDSAVE THE SOUND: $540,000 · EnvironmentSAVE THE SOUNDTHE GREENWICH LAND TRUST INC: $60,000 · EnvironmentPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SO NEW ENGLAND: $220,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF S…GEORGE SCHOOL: $160,000 · OtherGEORGE SCHOOLPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CT: $66,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF C…+1 more: $7,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND INC: $330,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOO…THE GREENWICH LIBRARY: $30,000 · EducationFUTURE 5 INC: $29,000 · Youth DevelopmentBRUCE MUSEUM INC: $10,000 · Arts & Culture
Environment$1,345,000Other$453,000Health$330,000Education$30,000Youth Development$29,000Arts & Culture$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $745,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetSAVE THE SOUND: $540,000 over 6y, 2.1% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND INC: $330,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetTHE GREENWICH LAND TRUST INC: $60,000 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetTHE GREENWICH LIBRARY: $30,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetFUTURE 5 INC: $29,000 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetBRUCE MUSEUM INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% 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 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds SAVE THE SOUND ↗
  • Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND INC ↗
  • Who funds THE GREENWICH LAND TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds THE GREENWICH LIBRARY ↗
  • Who funds FUTURE 5 INC ↗
  • Who funds BRUCE MUSEUM 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 Goldman Sachs Cha…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift FundNY13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Crow Hill Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Crow Hill Foundation. 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 10%
  • Save the Sound: 37% of income from government
  • Planned Parenthood of Southern New England Inc: 10% of income from government
  • Bruce Museum Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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 11 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 Crow Hill’s 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