Skip to content
Foundation Dossiers

Connecticut · Public charity

Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation

Civic redevelopment

$10k
Granted FY2020
1
Grants FY2020
1
Organizations funded FY2020
0%
First-time grantees FY2020
Read the full brief
Median grant, FY2020
$17,500
Largest grant, FY2020
$17,500
Organizations funded a year
1 to 4
FY2017 to FY2020
States reached, FY2020
1
Total assets, FY2020
$2.7M

How open it is to new grantees

In FY2020, 0% of the organizations Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation funded were first-time grantees, receiving 0% of its grant dollars.

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time
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.
The numbers by year
Fiscal yearOrganizations fundedTo those organizationsFirst-time grantees
FY20201$18k0%
FY20191$18k0%
FY20182$20k50%
FY20174$41kn/a
100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2020.

Recreation & Sports$55kEducation$21kPhilanthropy$10kArts & Culture$10k

Top grantees

Largest recipients by total granted, FY2017 to FY2020, and the share of each one’s budget the grants supplied at peak.

GranteeTotal grantedYearsShare of their budget
CT Amateur Baseball Congress Inc$55,0004n/a
Brass City Charter School$11,04110%
The Palace Theater Group Inc$10,00010%
Naugatuck Valley Community College Foundation Inc$10,00011%
The Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association$10,00010%

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.

The Connecticut Commu…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Connecticut Community FoundationCT13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Connecticut Community Foundation · 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.

Compare Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation with peer funders

About Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation

How much does Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation give?
Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation reported 1 grants totaling $10,000 in its FY2020 IRS filing. It funded between 1 and 4 organizations a year over FY2017 to FY2020.
What does Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation fund?
By grant dollars over FY2017 to FY2020, its largest causes are Recreation & Sports (57%), Education (22%), Philanthropy (10%).
Who are Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation's largest grantees?
By total granted over FY2017 to FY2020: CT Amateur Baseball Congress Inc ($55k), Brass City Charter School ($11k), The Palace Theater Group Inc ($10k).
Does Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation fund new organizations?
In FY2020, 0% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.
Which funders back the same organizations as Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation?
Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include The Connecticut Community Foundation, Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, Amazonsmile Foundation.
Where is Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation based?
Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation is based in CT.

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 5 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2020, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Naugatuck Valley Development’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