· Private foundation
Joseph and Joan Cullman Conservation Foundation Inc
Its FY2024 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
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k13 grants · $53k
- $10k–50k13 grants · $234k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC | $50,000 |
| ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION INC | $30,000 |
| SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION | $25,000 |
| THE WILD CENTER | $25,000 |
| ADIRONDACK COUNCIL INC | $20,000 |
| PAUL SMITHS COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES | $20,000 |
| NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC | $20,000 |
| AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY | $15,000 |
| NATURE CONSERVANCY - ADIRONDACK CHAPTER | $15,000 |
| ADIRONDACK LAND TRUST INC | $15,000 |
| ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION INC | $15,000 |
| ONONDAGA AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ONONDAGA AUDUBON SOCI | $12,000 |
| CARY INSTITUTE OF ECOSYSTEM STUDIES INC | $12,000 |
| EARTHPLACE THE NATURE DISCOVERY CENTER INC | $10,000 |
| MARINE MAMMAL ALLIANCE NANTUCKET INC | $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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 90% 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.
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 +62% since the first grant, against -8% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $87k 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
- TATHE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL INC8× · 2017–2024 · $241k · revenue +49%
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC8× · 2017–2024 · $231k · revenue +62%- NHNATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM OF THE ADIRONDACKS8× · 2017–2024 · $211k · revenue +42%
Funded once
- AWAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +54%
THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INCone grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue -8%- EAEcoHealth Alliance Incone grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue -26%
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.
To protect the nature of massachusetts for people and for wildlife through education, land conservation, advocacy, scientific research, and habitat stewardship/restoration.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
The program mission of the quebec-labrador foundation u.s. is defined by a regional component (new england and eastern canada), and an international component, which ties our regional model to a global conservation network. qlf's program…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
The mission of the nature conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.
Our mission is to spark people's curiosity to explore, steward, and find peace and joy in nature. in service to this, norman bird sanctuary inspires, builds, and engages a community of stewards who preserve, protect, enjoy, and learn from…
The new jersey audubon society is a privately supported, not-for-profit, statewide membership organization. (see schedule o for details).
The mission of wildcoast is to conserve coastal and marine ecosystems and address climate change through natural solutions. our staff is dedicated to conserving threatened and endangered coastlines and wildlife in california and mexico.…
The wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…
To enable understanding and forecasting of the impacts of climate change, land-use change, and invasive species on continental-scale ecology by providing support for infrastructure and consistent methodologies to support research and…
Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Adirondack Council Inc and the most unlike its peers is Smithsonian Institution. 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 46 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
28 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. 28 of the 31 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 THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM OF THE ADIRONDACKS ↗
- Who funds American Museum of Natural History ↗
- Who funds Atlantic Salmon Federation (US) Inc ↗
- Who funds SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds ADIRONDACK LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds CARY INSTITUTE OF ECOSYSTEM STUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL AREAS CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds PAUL SMITHS COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds EcoHealth Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds EARTHPLACE INC ↗
- Who funds NANTUCKET SHELLFISH ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds NANTUCKET SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN ↗
- Who funds NANTUCKET LAND & WATER COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE TO PROTECT NANTUCKET SOUND INC ↗
- Who funds NANTUCKET MARIA MITCHELL ASSOCIATION IN ↗
- Who funds NANTUCKET CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Marine Mammal Alliance Nantucket ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds ADIRONDACK PUBLIC OBSERVATORY INC ↗
- Who funds ADIRONDACK CENTER FOR LOON CONSERVATION ↗
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: Boston Foundation Inc · Community Foundation for Nantucket Inc · Meyer & Jean Steinberg Family Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Joseph and Joan Cullman Conservation Foundation Inc 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.
- EcoHealth Alliance Inc — 24% of income from government
- Nantucket Maria Mitchell Association in — 9% of income from government
- Nantucket Conservation Foundation Inc — 4% 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 Joseph and Joan Cullman Conservation Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Joseph and Joan Cullman Conservation Foundation 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.