Skip to content
Joseph F Engelberger Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Joseph F Engelberger Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$25k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Health$131kEducation$52kScience & Tech$25kEnvironment$6kHuman Services$600Youth Development$400Public Benefit$400Community Improvement$300Other$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$15,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$556k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOLD FOUNDATION$15,000
DANBURY HOSPITAL$10,000
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 (FY18–18, $200) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $200 → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WI
MI
NY
CT
CA
CO
KY
VA
DC
GA
TX
FL
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

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
Commonwealth Care Alliance Inc

Commonwealth care alliance, inc.'s mission is to improve the health and well-being of people with significant needs by innovating, coordinating and providing the highest quality, individualized care.

Health
2
Council for Responsible Nutrition

To protect and advance a climate for our members to responsibly create and market science-based dietary supplements, functional food, and their ingredients, for better human health and nutrition.

—
3
American Gas Association

American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…

—
4
Connecticut Association of Health Care Facilities Inc

The association is the leader in providing services to and advocating for, the state's providers of long-term, subacute, rehabilitative, and assisted living care. additionally, the association serves as a clearing house for information…

—
5
Asco Association

Asco association promotes the common business interests of its members by: (1) advocating for policies that improve the quality of cancer care; (2) maintaining the highest standards of oncology medical care through programs supporting…

Community Improvement
6
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
7
Dana-Farber Cancer Care Network Inc

The mission of Dana-Farber Cancer Care Network (DFCCN) is to promote and support, directly or indirectly, the interests and purposes of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI).

Health
8
National Committee for Quality Assurance

Our mission: to improve the quality of health care.our vision: better health care. better choices. better health.

Health
9
National Comprehensive Cancer Network

To define and advance quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care and prevention so all people can live better lives.

Health
10
National Association of Clean Water Agencies

Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.

—
11
Northeast College of Health Sciences

Northeast college of health sciences (the college) is committed to academic excellence, leadership, and professional best practices in the health sciences.

Education
12
Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States Inc

The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Connecticut Foodshare Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Danbury Hospital. 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

10 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. 10 of the 20 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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

The Danbury Hospital: $140,000 · HealthThe Danbury Hospital+2 more: $800 · HealthThe Bold Foundation Inc: $55,000 · EducationThe Bold Foundation Inc+1 more: $500 · EducationIndividual grant recipient: $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant rec…COLUMBIA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: $10,000 · OtherCOLUMBIA SCHOOL OF E…VENMAN BUSHLAND NATIONAL PARK: $5,575 · OtherVENMAN BUSHLAND NATI…+9 more: $3,300 · Other+9 moreCOOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC: $200 · InternationalAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $200 · Human ServicesNEWTOWN FOREST ASSOCIATION INC: $100 · Environment
Health$140,800Education$55,500Other$43,875International$200Human Services$200Environment$100

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetThe Danbury Hospital: $140,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetThe Bold Foundation Inc: $55,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF THE CUMBERLANDS INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE: $400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEWTOWN FOREST ASSOCIATION INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCONNECTICUT FOODSHARE INC: $100 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.

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.

Fidelity Investments …
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Joseph F Engelberger Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Joseph F Engelberger Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • Connecticut Foodshare Inc: 5% of income from government
  • The Danbury Hospital: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
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.

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 20 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.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Joseph F Engelberger’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