Skip to content

· Private foundation

Macamor Foundation

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.

$143k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$51k
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 2025.

Education$405kHealth$116kHuman Services$73kPhilanthropy$72kAnimals$65kRecreation & Sports$10kYouth Development$5kHousing & Shelter$5k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $39k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $101k
$18,750
Median grant
3
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VARIOUS PUBLIC CHARITIES$50,900
W P I$50,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS WOUNDED WARRIORS$18,750
NC WESLRYIN UNIVERSITY$10,000
CONWAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION$10,000
Individual grant recipient$3,000
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 (FY17–23, $49k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%SOWW: $21k → 13%THOMPSON SENIOR CENTER: $5k → 9%SOWW: $8k → 13%SOWW: $8k → 13%SOWW: $4k → 13%SOWW: $2k → 13%SOWW: $1k → 13%SOWW: $1k → 13%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.
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$566k · 11 repeat orgs$184k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
10

Total granted

$566k
$105k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+67%
+78%

Still filing today

27%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 45% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $79k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsHealthOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    4× · 2018–2021 · $160k
  • WP
    W P I SCHOLERSHIP
    2× · 2023–2024 · $100k
  • CM
    CONWAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION
    8× · 2018–2025 · $94k

Funded once

  • WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTEgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $40k · revenue +63%
  • NW
    NC WESLEYIN UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2023 · $20k
  • WA
    WINTERGREEN ADAPTIVE SPORTS
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue -1%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its 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
Progressive Animal Welfare Society aka Paws

A champion for animals since 1967, PAWS is a nationally recognized leader - rehabilitating injured and orphaned wildlife, sheltering and adopting homeless cats and dogs, and educating people to make a better world for animals and people.

Animals
2
Wildlife Habitat Council

The Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC) promotes and certifies habitat conservation and management on corporate lands through partnerships and education.

Animals
3
Washington Humane Society

The washington humane society protects animals, supports families, and advocates for positive change to create a world where all animals can thrive. we enrich the humanity of our communities by promoting compassion and encouraging people…

Animals
4
Washington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition

Creating a greener, healthier, more equitable, and better Washington for all through community outreach, network building, and advocacy for conservation and outdoor recreation funding.

—
5
Wildlife Protection Solutions

To protect endangered species.

Animals
6
Wireless Research Center of North Carolina

The Wireless Research Center is an independent, private nonprofit research center dedicated to applied research and engineering. Located in North Carolina's Research Triangle region, the WRC helps clients from around the world develop…

Science & Tech
7
Greenwood Wildlife Rehabilitation Center

The center is devoted to the rehabilitation and release of orphaned and injured wildlife. the center also provides outreach programs focused on rehabilitation and humane solutions to human-wildlife conflicts.

Animals
8
The Washington County Humane Society Inc

Rescue and care for stray or unwanted animals.

Animals
9
West Shore Wildlife Center

To inspire coexistence between humans and wildlife.

Animals
10
Paws With a Cause

To transform lives and strengthen communities through partnerships with custom trained working dogs.

Human Services
11
Waterbird Society

The waterbird society is composed of biologists, researchers, conservationists, students, and others interested in the behavior, ecology, and conservation of waterbirds. the organization is administered by officers and council members…

—
12
Humane Animal Welfare Society of Waukesha County Inc

The humane animal welfare society of waukesha county leads the community in animal welfare and assures sanctuary for animals in need.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Woodstock Area Council On Aging; the most unlike its peers is Humane Society of North Myrtle Beach Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 24 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $160,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientW P I SCHOLERSHIP: $100,000 · OtherW P I SCHOLERSHIPCONWAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $93,985 · OtherCONWAY MEDICAL FOUNDATIONVARIOUS PUBLIC CHARITIES: $92,025 · OtherVARIOUS PUBLIC CHARITIESW P I: $50,000 · OtherW P IWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE: $40,000 · OtherWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTEDELTA WATERFOWL: $31,360 · Other+10 more: $108,180 · Other+10 moreSOWW Corp: $43,665 · Human ServicesWOODSTOCK AREA COUNCIL ON AGING: $5,000 · Human ServicesDelta Waterfowl Foundation: $7,700 · AnimalsBOYKIN SPANIEL RESCUE INC: $6,200 · AnimalsHUMANE SOCIETY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH INC: $500 · AnimalsWINTERGREEN ADAPTIVE SPORTS: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $2,000 · Health
Other$675,550Human Services$48,665Animals$14,400Recreation & Sports$10,000Health$2,000

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 budgetSOWW Corp: $43,665 over 7y, 2.9% of budgetWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE: $40,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDelta Waterfowl Foundation: $7,700 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBOYKIN SPANIEL RESCUE INC: $6,200 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetWOODSTOCK AREA COUNCIL ON AGING: $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetWACCAMAW YOUTH CENTER INC: $4,710 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 SOWW Corp ↗
  • Who funds WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds WINTERGREEN ADAPTIVE SPORTS ↗
  • Who funds Delta Waterfowl Foundation ↗
  • Who funds BOYKIN SPANIEL RESCUE INC ↗
  • Who funds WOODSTOCK AREA COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
  • Who funds WACCAMAW YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds HUMANE SOCIETY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 8%
  • Worcester Polytechnic Institute: 8% of income from government
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–15%
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 24 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 Macamor’s filings →

More from the funding graph