Skip to content
Nectar Community Investments Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Nectar Community Investments Inc

Grow the assets and wealth of historically disinvested individuals and their communities by providing a combination of robust advice, resourced networks and capital in the merrimack valley and across massachusetts.

$585k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$188k
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.

Community Improvement$930kHousing & Shelter$705kPhilanthropy$240kEnvironment$104kHuman Services$78kRecreation & Sports$22kFood & Nutrition$18kHealth$14kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $542,527, the rows itemized in this filing. The $584,650 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $42,123 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $46k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $497k
$77,875
Median grant
1
States reached
$24M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ARCHIPELAGO STRATEGIES GROUP INC$187,500
THE BOSTON FOUNDATION$120,000
GREATER LAWRENCE COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL INC$77,875
ALL IN ENERGY$58,291
TBM CONSULTING$53,359
ABODE ENERGY MANAGEMENT$45,502
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%ENTERPRENEURSHIP FOR ALL INC: $42k → 8%GREATER LAWRENCE COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL INC: $78k → 10%ARCHIPELAGO STRATEGIES GROUP INC: $188k → 16%ABODE ENERGY MANAGEMENT: $46k → 8%THIRD EYE BEAUTY ESTHETICS: $8k → 16%TLE CENTER FOR URBAN ENTERPRENEURS: $150k → 16%TONY'S CONVENIENCE: $16k → 8%THE BOSTON FOUNDATION: $120k → 16%ALL IN ENERGY: $58k → 16%THE BOSTON FOUNDATION: $120k → 16%TBM CONSULTING: $53k → 16%ESSEX COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $400k → 10%BUENOMALO: $11k → 10%MAX & RILEY LLC: $10k → 10%BELLMORE'S AUTO REPAIR: $17k → 10%MODERNO APPLIANCE AND FURNITURE: $17k → 10%PRONTO PIZZA: $16k → 10%SAZON PERU PISCO BAR & GRILL LLC: $16k → 10%EVOLUTION BEAUTY SUPPLY & SALON: $16k → 10%RIVERSIDE HOUSE OF PIZZA: $15k → 10%CAST-MART: $15k → 10%WHITE SWAN LAUNDRY: $15k → 10%HERNANDEZ MARKET & BAKERY: $14k → 10%CURIOSITY: $13k → 10%TROPICAL MINI MARKET: $13k → 10%POPULAR MARKET: $13k → 10%CAVALLO RESTAURANT AND DINER LLC: $13k → 10%SANTO DOMINGO SHIPPING: $13k → 10%CARVER STREET COLLISION: $12k → 10%LEMICOM: $12k → 10%D JEAN BARBERSHOP: $12k → 10%UNITED AUTO BODY: $11k → 10%CANDY'S DAYCARE: $10k → 10%CARLO'S CAKES: $10k → 10%MI PAIS MARKET INC: $10k → 10%SIMPLY SMASHING: $10k → 10%DAIRY QUEEN: $9k → 10%SMALL BLESSING CHILD CARE INC: $9k → 10%ANGEL HOME REALTY: $9k → 10%YVELISSE UNISEX BEAUTY SALON: $9k → 10%DELISH BAKERY AND CAFE LLC: $8k → 10%AMABLE SUPERMARKET: $8k → 10%EL CORTE MAGICO SALON AND BARBER SH: $8k → 10%C & A CORP (DUNKIN): $7k → 10%JACQUELINE SUPERMARKET CORP: $7k → 10%J & J NAIL II: $7k → 10%KANIA MARTINEZ CHILDCARE: $7k → 10%TAVERN ON MERRIMACK LLC: $7k → 10%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 field
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 125 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ARCHIPELAGO STRATEGIES GROUP INC: $187,500 · OtherARCHIPELAGO STRATEGIES GROUP INCGREATER LAWRENCE COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL INC: $77,875 · OtherGREATER LAWRENCE COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL INCTBM CONSULTING: $53,359 · OtherABODE ENERGY MANAGEMENT: $45,502 · Other+116 more: $892,707 · Other+116 moreESSEX COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $400,000 · PhilanthropyESSEX COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION…Boston Foundation Inc: $240,000 · PhilanthropyBoston Foundation IncTLE CENTER FOR URBAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP: $150,000 · EmploymentALL IN ENERGY INC: $58,291 · EnvironmentENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR ALL INC: $42,000 · Community Improvement
Other$1,256,943Philanthropy$640,000Employment$150,000Environment$58,291Community Improvement$42,000

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 budgetESSEX COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $400,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetBoston Foundation Inc: $240,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTLE CENTER FOR URBAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP: $150,000 over 1y, 53% of budgetGREATER LAWRENCE COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL INC: $77,875 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetALL IN ENERGY INC: $58,291 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR ALL INC: $42,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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 ESSEX COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Boston Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds TLE CENTER FOR URBAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP ↗
  • Who funds GREATER LAWRENCE COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds ALL IN ENERGY INC ↗
  • Who funds ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR ALL INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Nectar Community Investments Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nectar Community Investments Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Tle Center for Urban Entrepreneurship: 49% of income from government
  • Greater Lawrence Community Action Council Inc: 15% of income from government
  • Entrepreneurship for All Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Essex County Community Foundation Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Boston Foundation Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
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 125 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Nectar Community Investments’ 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