· Private foundation
Nicole Laurel Cuddy Foundation
Its FY2022 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 FY2017–2022.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2022
- Under $10k5 grants · $9k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| JUDICIAL WATCH | $10,000 |
| FLCCC ALLIANCE | $5,000 |
| ALASKA POLICY FORUM | $1,000 |
| PRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| ARMED SERVICES YMCA OF ALASKA | $1,000 |
| PROJECT VERITAS | $1,000 |
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 (FY21–21, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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 +62% since the first grant, against +27% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2022, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (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 FY2022, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
- TPTEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION3× · 2020–2022 · $50k · revenue +62%
JUDICIAL WATCH INC4× · 2019–2022 · $21k · revenue +40%
SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN3× · 2018–2020 · $9k · revenue +94%
Funded once
- MRMEDIA RESEARCH CENTER OF ALASKAone grant, 2019 · $11k
- ACALASKA CHILDREN'S SERVICES INCone grant, 2017 · $11k · revenue -3%
- LFLUCKY FIN PROJECTone grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue -35%
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 open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. Pew Research Center generates a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and…
Christianity Today is a global community inspired by evangelical conviction to advance the stories and ideas of the kingdom of God. Our mission is to elevate the storytellers and sages of the global church.
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
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,…
Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.
The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…
As a christian university, we provide education and research opportunities preparing global leaders to partner with local communities.
See Schedule O. The mission of the American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC) is to educate and broadly share information with people and organizations around the world to improve productivity and quality by:- Discovering, researching…
The american constitution society for law and policy (acs) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan legal organization. through a diverse nationwide network of progressive lawyers, law students, judges, scholars, advocates, and many others,…
The texas tribune promotes civic engagement and public education across the state by producing and sharing for free public data interactives, statewide events and intensive and daily reporting on texas public policy, politics and current…
The manhattan institute is a community of scholars, journalists, activists, and civic leaders dedicated to advancing opportunity, individual liberty, and the rule of law in america and its great cities.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Public Policy Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Texas Organic Research Center Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 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. 17 of the 23 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 TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds ALASKA POLICY FORUM INC ↗
- Who funds ALASKA CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds LUCKY FIN PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Marked Men for Christ Inc ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF ANCHORAGE ↗
- Who funds WORLDVIEW MATTERS ↗
- Who funds Texas Organic Research Center Inc ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds PRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PROJECT VERITAS ↗
- Who funds Big Brothers Big Sisters of Alaska ↗
- Who funds Leadership Institute ↗
- Who funds CATO INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds HILLSDALE COLLEGE ↗
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: The Alaska Community Foundation · Rasmuson Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Nicole Laurel Cuddy 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Shriners Hospitals for Children — 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 Nicole Laurel Cuddy Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Nicole Laurel Cuddy 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.