· Private foundation
New Tudor Foundation CO Hemenway & Barnes LLP
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 clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k7 grants · $18k
- $10k–50k9 grants · $130k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Green Across the World Inc | $20,000 |
| Village and Wilderness Project Inc | $20,000 |
| Encampment For Citizenship | $20,000 |
| Tides Foundation | $15,000 |
| University of Washington Foundation | $15,000 |
| Latin American Youth Center Inc | $10,000 |
| State Voices | $10,000 |
| New Venture Fund | $10,000 |
| Project Eats Inc | $10,000 |
| SW Voter Registration Education Pro | $5,000 |
| Zenith Accelerated Learning Academy | $2,500 |
| Urban Farming Institute of Boston I | $2,500 |
| Solidarity Inc | $2,500 |
| Freedom United | $2,500 |
| Ray of Hope Institute Inc | $2,000 |
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 (FY24–24, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
12 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 5 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, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $22k 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
- EFENCAMPMENT FOR CITIZENSHIP3× · 2022–2024 · $60k · revenue +2%
- GAGREEN ACROSS THE WORLD INC3× · 2022–2024 · $46k · revenue +155% · 42% of their budget
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION2× · 2021–2024 · $43k · revenue +11%
Funded once
CREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +95%- NINICAPHOTO INCone grant, 2022 · $21k · revenue +13%
- HCHAMPTONS COMMUNITY OUTREACH INCgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue +211%
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.
Global ties u.s. (global ties) powers individuals, communities, and nations to build trust and advance peace and prosperity through international exchange.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
Within the Americas promoting dialogue and research, producing studies and reports, conducting courses and conferences particularly in the areas of agroecology and food security
Crisis group works to prevent and resolve deadly conflict around the world by informing and influencing the perceptions and actions of policymakers and other key conflict actors. to this end, we endeavour to talk to all sides and provide…
Nrgi envisions a world where natural resources enable fair, prosperous and sustainable societies, instead of undermining them. nrgi exists because decisions about how natural resources are governed determine the well-being of people in…
Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
We work throughout the whole supply chain to make sustainability the norm and enable farmers and workers to earn a decent income, produce in balance with nature, and shape their own future.
MESA connects and cultivates sustainable farmers and food systems leaders around the world.
The world future society works to improve decision-making about the future by empowering futurists, fostering networks and advancing knowledge and action on future critical issues.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
Pathfinder expands access to sexual and reproductive health services, opening the door to opportunities for women and all individuals to thrive-economically, educationally, and civically. driven by our country-led leadership and local…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New Venture Fund and the most unlike its peers is Green Across the World 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 27 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% 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 11% 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.
35 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. 35 of the 41 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 AMERICAN ENDOWMENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ENCAMPMENT FOR CITIZENSHIP ↗
- Who funds GREEN ACROSS THE WORLD INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Village and Wilderness Project Inc ↗
- Who funds WINDWARD FUND ↗
- Who funds PROJECT EATS INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds CREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds NICAPHOTO INC ↗
- Who funds HAMPTONS COMMUNITY OUTREACH INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds CROSSCURRENTS INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds UNITED PLANT SAVERS ↗
- Who funds AMERICARES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds STATE VOICES ↗
- Who funds PARENTS NURSERY SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds SOLIDARITY ↗
- Who funds Southwest Voter Registration Education Project Inc ↗
- Who funds THE URBAN FARMING INSTITUTE OF BOSTONINC ↗
- Who funds Feeding America ↗
- Who funds BIODIVERSITY WORKS ↗
- Who funds SYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
- Who funds HOMEGROWN NATIONAL PARK INC ↗
- Who funds EMMAUS HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds SAN LORENZO VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds Freedom United ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN NEAR EAST REFUGEE AID ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA ↗
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: American Endowment Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Network for Good · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 New Tudor Foundation CO Hemenway & Barnes LLP 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.
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- The Urban Farming Institute of Bostoninc — 4% of income from government
- Americares Foundation Inc — 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 New Tudor Foundation CO Hemenway & Barnes LLP?
Find your warmest path to New Tudor Foundation CO Hemenway & Barnes LLP 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.