Skip to content

· Private foundation

Edible Cares Inc

$14k
Granted FY2019
1
Grants FY2019
1
States reached
$14k
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, FY2017 to 2019.

Employment$46kFood & Nutrition$44kArts & Culture$15kInternational$5kRecreation & Sports$3kPublic Safety & Disaster$2kReligion$1kHealth$750
02FY2019 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$14,335
Median grant
1
States reached
$181
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
11 EMPLOYEES OF EDIBLE ARRANGEMENT FRANCHISES$14,335
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.

None of its grants could be placed against low income need for this view.

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 field
04the grantee network

4 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. 4 of the 12 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)
4/4
Grantees still filing
3/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

22 EMPLOYEES OF EDIBLE ARRANGEMENT FRANCHISES: $31,850 · Other22 EMPLOYEES OF EDIBLE ARRANGEMENT FRANCHISES12 EMPLOYEES OF INDEPENDENT EDIBLE ARRAGNGEMENT FRANCHISES: $22,675 · Other12 EMPLOYEES OF INDEPENDENT EDIBLE ARRAGNGEMENT FRANCHISES28 EMPLOYEES OF INDEPENDENT EDIBLE ARRAGNGEMENT FRANCHISES: $19,755 · Other28 EMPLOYEES OF INDEPENDENT EDIBLE ARRAGNGEMENT FRANCHISES11 EMPLOYEES OF EDIBLE ARRANGEMENT FRANCHISES: $14,335 · Other11 EMPLOYEES OF EDIBLE ARRANGEMENT FRANCHISES+4 more: $4,532 · OtherPOLISH-AMERICAN FOUNDATION OF CONNECTICUT INC: $15,000 · Arts & CulturePOLISH-AMERICA…JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF SOUTHWEST NEW ENGLAND INC: $5,000 · InternationalALMADA LODGE TIMES FARM CAMP CORPORATION: $2,858 · Recreation & SportsCONNECTICUT CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION INC: $500 · Health
Other$93,147Arts & Culture$15,000International$5,000Recreation & Sports$2,858Health$500

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 budgetPOLISH-AMERICAN FOUNDATION OF CONNECTICUT INC: $15,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF SOUTHWEST NEW ENGLAND INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetALMADA LODGE TIMES FARM CAMP CORPORATION: $2,858 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCONNECTICUT CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION INC: $500 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 POLISH-AMERICAN FOUNDATION OF CONNECTICUT INC ↗
  • Who funds JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF SOUTHWEST NEW ENGLAND INC ↗
  • Who funds ALMADA LODGE TIMES FARM CAMP CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds CONNECTICUT CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Edible Cares Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Edible Cares Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get 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 · 0–50%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Edible Cares Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Edible Cares 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.

    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 12 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2019, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Edible Cares’ filings →

    More from the funding graph