· Private foundation
E C Fuller Trust U Art 16 Main
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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 53% of E C FULLER TRUST U ART 16 MAIN’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $5k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $74k
- $50k–250k7 grants · $696k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY | $175,000 |
| UNIV OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTE | $121,000 |
| CANCER CARE INC | $100,000 |
| KECK GRADUATE INSTITUTE | $100,000 |
| METHODIST HOSPITAL | $75,000 |
| CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES | $75,000 |
| GLOBAL RESOURCE FOR ADVANCING CANCER EDU | $50,000 |
| KIDNEY CANCER ASSOCIATION | $37,500 |
| NATIONAL COALITION FOR CANCER SURVIVORSH | $36,500 |
| THE GET IN TOUCH FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
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 US giving — 87% of grant dollars ($4.3M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 13% that went abroad ($622k) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 61% of your 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
Beyond the US — 13% of all-years giving ($622k)
1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +14% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 7 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, 45% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $425k 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
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc3× · 2017–2024 · $467k · revenue +132%- BIBUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON AGING2× · 2023–2024 · $300k · revenue +14%
- CCCancer Care Inc3× · 2023–2025 · $283k · revenue +17%
Funded once
- EPECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNEone grant, 2023 · $150k
- MSMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERINGone grant, 2017 · $130k
- OHOREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVone grant, 2017 · $130k
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.
Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.
To help conquer cancer and other diseases through the application of biostatistical principles and innovative data management methods.
The Addario Lung Cancer Medical Institute ALCMI is dedicated to catalyzing and accelerating the discovery, development and delivery of new and more effective treatment options for lung cancer patients.
Break through cancer is a foundation dedicated to supporting translational research in the most difficult to treat cancers. our partner organizations are among the top cancer research centers and together, represent some of the most…
Curesearch's mission is to fund & support targeted & innovative cancer research with measurable results, & to be the authoritative source of information & resources for all those affected by children's cancer. see schedule o for…
Susan g. komen 's mission is to save lives by meeting the most critical needs in our communities & investing in breakthrough research to prevent & cure breast cancer.
Please see schedule o
Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o
Northwell health cancer institute is part of northwell health, inc. ("northwell"), which strives to improve the health of the communities it serves and is committed to providing the highest quality clinical care; educating the current and…
The mission of quantum leap healthcare collarborative is to provide management and financial support to healthcare research organizations, particularly involving breast cancer research and treatment.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cancer Care Inc and the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. 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 23 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 AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds BUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON AGING ↗
- Who funds Cancer Care Inc ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Los Angeles ↗
- Who funds CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY GREATER NY & CT INC ↗
- Who funds CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences ↗
- Who funds THE KIDNEY CANCER ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL COALITION FOR CANCER SURVIVORSHIP ↗
- Who funds THE GET IN TOUCH FOUNDATIONINC ↗
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: National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 E C Fuller Trust U Art 16 Main 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.
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% 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 E C Fuller Trust U Art 16 Main?
Find your warmest path to E C Fuller Trust U Art 16 Main 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.