Skip to content

· Private foundation

David Rodman Titcomb Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$118k
Granted FY2024still arriving
23
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Animals$123kRecreation & Sports$55kHuman Services$30kHealth$28kArts & Culture$15kHousing & Shelter$15kPhilanthropy$14kInternational$9kOther$0
02FY2024 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k22 grants · $108k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$5,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ANIMAL ADOPTION CENTER$10,000
TETON COUNTY PET PARTNERS$5,000
PAWS CHICAGO$5,000
NW ACCESS FUND$5,000
LANDER CYCLING CLUB$5,000
WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF$5,000
FRIENDS OF PATHWAYS$5,000
CROWHEART COMMUNITY CENTER$5,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
UNIVERSITY OF WY FOUNDATION FBO WY$5,000
HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL$5,000
PEACEFUL VALLEY DONKEY RESCUE$5,000
BEYOND FENCES$5,000
HUMANE SOCIETY OF US$5,000
PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBL$5,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–24, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%VILLAGE BICYCLE PROJECT: $5k → 9%VILLAGE BICYCLE PROJECT: $5k → 9%NEEDS OF DUBOIS: $50 → 17%VILLAGE BICYCLE PROJECT: $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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$260k · 17 repeat orgs$29k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +21% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 16 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
2

Total granted

$260k
$100

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%
0%

Still filing today

53%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
AnimalsRecreation & SportsHuman ServicesHealthPublic Safety & DisasterEnvironmentOther
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

  • CB
    Cascade Bicycle Club
    3× · 2022–2024 · $15k · revenue +175%
  • VB
    VILLAGE BICYCLE PROJECT INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $15k · revenue +3%
  • BEYOND FENCES INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $15k · revenue +209%

Funded once

  • VO
    VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
    one grant, 2022 · $50
  • NO
    NEEDS OF DUBOIS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $50
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
World Vets

To improve the health & well-being of animals through veterinary aid, response, training, research & local capacity building worldwide. We provide services to companion animals, horses, street dogs, livestock and marine animals including…

Animals
2
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
3
Washington Bikes

Washington Bikes works to ensure that all who ride a bicycle in Washington have safe comfortable and convenient places to ride. Organization advocates for bicyclists rights and shapes policies.

Recreation & Sports
4
Progressive Animal Welfare Society aka Paws

A champion for animals since 1967, PAWS is a nationally recognized leader - rehabilitating injured and orphaned wildlife, sheltering and adopting homeless cats and dogs, and educating people to make a better world for animals and people.

Animals
5
Best Friends Animal Society

To bring about a time when there are no more homeless pets. we do this by demonstrating and promoting exemplary animal care and building community programs and partnerships.

Animals
6
Animal Rescue of the Rockies

Animal Care and Adoption - ARR's mission is to save the lives of homeless and abandoned dogs and cats. Our goal is reaching a no-kill society in the United States.

Animals
7
Animal Shelter of Wood River Valley Dba Mountain Humane

We are on a mission to change lives by connecting pets and people. We dothis through innovative programs that inspire and have impact beyond ourborders. We envision a compassionate community where all animals arerecognized for their…

Animals
8
Animal Wellness Action

To prevent cruelty to animals, we promote enacting and enforcing good public policies. enacting good laws depends upon electing good lawmakers, and we remind voters which candidates care about and support animal issues.

Human Services
9
Humane World for Animals Inc

Humane World for Animals, Inc., formerly known as the Humane Society of the United States (The Organization), seeks to tackle the root causes of animal cruelty and suffering. CONTINUED ON SCHEDULE O

Animals
10
Willamette Animal Guild

To reduce animal cruelty and suffering, with emphasis on providing low-cost spay/neuter and wellness services. Specifically, WAGs goal is to reduce pet overpopulation through our high-quality, high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter clinic in…

Animals
11
Hope for China Dogs Rescue

At Hope for China Dogs, we are committed to combating the cruel and inhumane practice of the dog meat trade in China. We believe that every dog deserves to live a life free from pain and suffering, and we are dedicated to rescuing and…

Animals
12
Last Chance for Animals

Dedicated to ending animal abuse and exploitation through education, public outreach and investigations.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of Pathways; the most unlike its peers is Village Bicycle Project 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

14 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. 14 of the 26 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
9/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUNIVERSITY OF WY FOUNDATION FBO WY: $15,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WY FOUNDATION FBO WYLANDER CYCLING CLUB: $15,000 · OtherLANDER CYCLING CLUBHUMANE SOCIETY OF US: $15,000 · OtherHUMANE SOCIETY OF USUNIVERSITY OF WY FOUNDATION FBO WIN: $12,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WY FOUNDATION FBO WINNW ACCESS FUND: $10,000 · OtherNW ACCESS FUNDIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTETON COUNTY PET PARTNERS: $7,500 · OtherTETON COUNTY PET PARTNERSCROWHEART COMMUNITY CENTER: $5,000 · OtherPEACEFUL VALLEY DONKEY RESCUE: $5,000 · OtherGLOBAL CITIZEN JOURNEY FBO HEALTHY: $4,000 · Other+1 more: $50 · OtherAnimal Adoption Center Inc: $45,000 · AnimalsAnimal Adoption Center IncBEYOND FENCES INC: $15,000 · AnimalsBEYOND FENCES INCPAWS CHICAGO: $15,000 · AnimalsPAWS CHICAGOHumane World for Animals International: $15,000 · AnimalsHumane World for Animals Internation…Animals' Angels Incorporated: $5,000 · AnimalsCascade Bicycle Club: $15,000 · Recreation & SportsCascade Bicycle…FRIENDS OF PATHWAYS: $15,000 · Recreation & SportsFRIENDS OF PATH…Outdoors for all Foundation: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsOutdoors for al…VILLAGE BICYCLE PROJECT INC: $15,000 · Human Services+1 more: $50 · Human ServicesPhysicians Committee for Responsible Med: $15,000 · HealthWORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFP: $5,000 · Public Safety & DisasterWIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE: $5,000 · EnvironmentCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE: $4,000 · Philanthropy
Other$114,050Animals$95,000Recreation & Sports$40,000Human Services$15,050Health$15,000Public Safety & Disaster$5,000Environment$5,000Philanthropy$4,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAnimal Adoption Center Inc: $45,000 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetCascade Bicycle Club: $15,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetVILLAGE BICYCLE PROJECT INC: $15,000 over 3y, 5.9% of budgetBEYOND FENCES INC: $15,000 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetPAWS CHICAGO: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF PATHWAYS: $15,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetPhysicians Committee for Responsible Med: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHumane World for Animals International: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetOutdoors for all Foundation: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetAnimals' Angels Incorporated: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFP: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE: $4,000 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 Animal Adoption Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds Cascade Bicycle Club ↗
  • Who funds VILLAGE BICYCLE PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds BEYOND FENCES INC ↗
  • Who funds PAWS CHICAGO ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF PATHWAYS ↗
  • Who funds Physicians Committee for Responsible Med ↗
  • Who funds Humane World for Animals International ↗
  • Who funds Outdoors for all Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Animals' Angels Incorporated ↗
  • Who funds WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFP ↗
  • Who funds WIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE ↗
  • Who funds NEEDS OF DUBOIS 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.

Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN7.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 David Rodman Titcomb Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from David Rodman Titcomb Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–10%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to David Rodman Titcomb Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to David Rodman Titcomb Foundation 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.

    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 26 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on David Rodman Titcomb’s filings →

    More from the funding graph