· Private foundation
McCullough Foundation
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 placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k62 grants · $83k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $32k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NORTH STONINGTON CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH | $17,000 |
| PARK MCCULLOUGH HOUSE | $15,000 |
| WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF | $9,000 |
| CHIKUMBUSO | $5,700 |
| IMBA | $5,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD | $4,000 |
| AMER FRIENDS SVC COMM-AFSC DEV FD | $4,000 |
| MERCY CORPS | $4,000 |
| CONNECTICUT FOODSHARE | $3,000 |
| WHEELER LIBRARY | $3,000 |
| UNITED WAY OF SE CONNECTICUT | $3,000 |
| TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS | $3,000 |
| OCEANA | $2,500 |
| THE NATURE CONSERVANCY OF CONNECTICUT | $2,500 |
| GARDE ARTS CENTER | $2,500 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $23k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 63% of those 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +49% since the first grant, against +30% for the ones you funded once.
72 repeat relationships — 60 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 3 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, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFP4× · 2020–2024 · $34k · revenue +49%- MCMercy Corps5× · 2020–2024 · $23k · revenue +16%
- CFCONNECTICUT FOODSHARE INC5× · 2020–2024 · $16k · revenue +97%
Funded once
- MUMAUI UNITED WAYgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +188%
- CLCT LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUNDone grant, 2023 · $250 · revenue +3%
- ASAMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2023 · $100 · revenue +3%
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The nantucket conservation foundation owns, protects, and stewards over 9,000 acres of land and coastal shoreline, conserves nantucket's rare and significant natural resources, and engages in impactful ecological research to inform…
The northeastern regional association of coastal and ocean observing systems' (neracoos) mission is to produce, integrate and communicate high- quality information that helps ensure safety, economic and environmental resilience, and…
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
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…
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
See schedule onylcv is a non-partisan policy making and political action organization that works to make environmental protection a top priority with elected officials, decision-makers and the voters by evaluating incumbent performance and…
Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Waterorg and the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. 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 40 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% 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 13% 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.
53 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. 53 of the 94 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 WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFP ↗
- Who funds Mercy Corps ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT FOODSHARE INC ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds Garde Arts Center Inc ↗
- Who funds AVALONIA LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds MAUI UNITED WAY ↗
- Who funds FINCA INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds OCEANA INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds PAWCATUCK NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds POPULATION CONNECTION ↗
- Who funds LYCOMING COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds SAVE THE SOUND ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds SANDY HOOK PROMISE FOUNDATION ↗
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: Chelsea Groton Foundation · The Community Foundation of Eastern Connecticut Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Dime Bank Foundation Inc · The Edward and Mary Lord Foundation · Dominion Energy Charitable Foundation · Connecticut Humanities Council Inc · Kitchings Family Foundation · Washington Trust Co Charitable Fdn · Liberty Bank Foundation Inc · The Nordson Corporation Foundation · The Rhode Island Community 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 McCullough Foundation 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.
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- Save the Sound — 37% of income from government
- Xerces Society Inc — 22% of income from government
- Avalonia Land Conservancy Inc — 21% of income from government
- Madonna Place Inc — 20% of income from government
- Garde Arts Center Inc — 10% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Connecticut Foodshare Inc — 5% of income from government
- Mystic Seaport Museum Inc — 5% of income from government
- Connecticut Public Broadcasting Inc — 3% of income from government
- The Writer's Block Ink Inc — 2% of income from government
- Sandy Hook Promise Foundation — 0% of income from government
- Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center — 0% of income from government
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association — 0% 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 McCullough Foundation?
Find your warmest path to McCullough Foundation 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.