· Private foundation
Crowell Family Foundation 7522-Xxxxxx00058
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k32 grants · $42k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $51k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE | $20,598 |
| COLORADO GIVESORG | $16,742 |
| COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF | $14,000 |
| AMERICAN RED CROSS | $7,000 |
| BROOKS SCHOOL | $2,500 |
| CHAFFEE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $2,062 |
| AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION | $2,000 |
| SMITH COLLEGE | $2,000 |
| KENDALL AT HANOVER | $2,000 |
| ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION | $1,500 |
| UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS | $1,038 |
| PLACES TO AGE | $1,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
| CHEWONKI FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL | $1,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +42% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
105 repeat relationships — 29 still active in FY2025, 76 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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 FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- ADALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $15k · revenue +40%
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC9× · 2017–2025 · $14k · revenue +98%- BSBROOKS SCHOOL7× · 2017–2025 · $13k · revenue +25%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $3k
UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEFgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $2k · revenue +64%- IRInternational Rescue Committee INCone grant, 2022 · $2k · revenue -4%
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.
Eastern national promotes the public's understanding and support of america's national parks and other public trust partners by providing quality educational experiences, products and services.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
Amazon conservation unites science, people, and innovation to protect the amazon - the greatest wild forest on earth. as guardians of the most iconic forest on the planet, we bring together the power of the latest science and technology…
Grist is an independent, non profit media organization dedicated to reporting on climate change.
To sustain, restore, and enhance the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats.
The adirondack council ensures the ecological integrity (clean water and air, wildlife habitat, etc.), wild character (solitude, scenic beauty, etc.), and vibrant communities of new york's six-million-acre adirondack park. the adirondack…
Conservation legacy engages future leaders who protect, restore, and enhance our nation's lands through community-based service.in 2024, conservation legacy engaged 2,524 participants who completed over 1.5 million service hours on public…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Colorado Gives Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Tomales Bay Watershed Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 42 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
96 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. 96 of the 163 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 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE ↗
- Who funds ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds BROOKS SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds KENDAL AT HANOVER I ↗
- Who funds Chewonki Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds UPPER VALLEY LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HEIFER INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PUTNEY SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds COLORADO GIVES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds 350ORG ↗
- Who funds EMERGENCY FAMILY ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP ↗
- Who funds GRANITE UNITED WAY ↗
- Who funds GRAFTON CARES INC ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds KNEISEL HALL ↗
- Who funds OPERA NORTH ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN STAGE COMPANY ↗
- Who funds NATIVE PLANT TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
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: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Mt Roeschmore Foundation · Mascoma Bank Foundation · Emily Landecker Foundation Inc · Colorado Gives Foundation · The Stannard & Dorothy Dunn Charitable Trust · The Couch Family Foundation · Community Foundation of Jackson Hole · Community Foundation Boulder County · Ibm International Foundation · Lane & Elizabeth C Dwinell Fdn
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 Crowell Family Foundation 7522-Xxxxxx00058 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.
- Connecticut River Watershed Council Inc — 40% of income from government
- Upper Valley Haven — 38% of income from government
- Advance Transit Inc — 18% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Northern Stage Company — 5% of income from government
- Native Plant Trust Inc — 3% of income from government
- The Trustees of the Smith College — 1% of income from government
- Appalachian Mountain Club — 1% of income from government
- Trinity College — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% 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.