Skip to content
J W Leahy Fdn Restrict Fd at a glance

· Private foundation

J W Leahy Fdn Restrict Fd

Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$35k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$18k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0176% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Health$40kHuman Services$6kHousing & Shelter$5kArts & Culture$4kCivil Rights$3kCrime & Legal$2kPublic Safety & Disaster$2kEnvironment$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k8 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $18k
$2,208
Median grant
2
States reached
$627k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DANBURY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$17,664
HOUSATONIC HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$2,208
DANBURY MUSEUM & HISTORICAL SOCIETY$2,208
ANN'S PLACE INC$2,208
CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT & EDUCATION$2,208
AMERICAN RED CROSS$2,208
THE SALVATION ARMY$2,208
REGIONAL HOSPICE$2,208
CANDLEWOOD VALLEY REGIONAL LAND TRUST$2,207
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

6 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. 6 of the 14 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
0/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DANBURY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $35,605 · OtherDANBURY HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONTHE SALVATION ARMY: $4,708 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYHOUSATONIC HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $3,200 · OtherHOUSATONIC HABITAT FOR HUMANITYCENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT &: $2,500 · OtherHousatonic Habitat for Humanity: $2,208 · OtherThe Center For Empowerment And Education Inc: $2,208 · OtherDANBURY MUSEUM & HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $2,208 · OtherCANDLEWOOD VALLEY REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $2,207 · Other+3 more: $4,000 · Other+3 moreANNS PLACE INC: $2,208 · Human ServicesANNS PLACE …REGIONAL HOSPICE AND HOME CARE OF WESTERN CONNECTICUT INC: $2,208 · Human ServicesREGIONAL HO…American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $2,208 · Human ServicesAmerican Na…
Other$58,844Human Services$6,624

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetANNS PLACE INC: $2,208 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetREGIONAL HOSPICE AND HOME CARE OF WESTERN CONNECTICUT INC: $2,208 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHousatonic Habitat for Humanity: $2,208 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Center For Empowerment And Education Inc: $2,208 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $2,208 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCANDLEWOOD VALLEY REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $2,207 over 1y, 24% 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.

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.

Patrick FoundationSavings Bank of Danbu…Union Savings Bank Fo…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Patrick FoundationDE13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patrick Foundation · Savings Bank of Danbury Foundation Inc · Union Savings Bank Foundation 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 J W Leahy Fdn Restrict Fd funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from J W Leahy Fdn Restrict Fd. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 J W Leahy Fdn Restrict Fd?

    Find your warmest path to J W Leahy Fdn Restrict Fd 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 14 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2026) is on record and reports $39k of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2025, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on J W Leahy Fdn Restrict Fd’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