· Private foundation
Regan P Remillard 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k15 grants · $29k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $56k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY IN HAITAI | $15,500 |
| UMASS CHAN MEDICAL SCHOOL | $15,000 |
| DETECTOGETHER | $15,000 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WEBSTER-DUDLEY | $10,000 |
| GREY TEAM | $6,797 |
| PLACE OF HOPE BOCA RATON | $3,250 |
| JIMMY FUND | $3,000 |
| UMASS MEMORIAL OFFICE OF PHILANTHROPY | $3,000 |
| JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM BEACH | $2,500 |
| SHREWSBURY PITCHES IN | $2,500 |
| BREAKTHROUGH MIAMI | $1,706 |
| VIZCAYA MUSEUM AND GARDENS | $1,500 |
| WOMEN OF TOMORROW | $1,250 |
| LIVE LIKE JAKE | $1,036 |
| YMCA OF CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS | $1,022 |
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 (FY19–24, $12k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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 +80% since the first grant, against +25% for the ones you funded once.
26 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 6 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, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k 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
- DIDETECTOGETHER INC FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE 15-40 CONNECTION INC7× · 2018–2024 · $101k · revenue +80%
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WEBSTER-DUDLEY INC6× · 2017–2024 · $48k · revenue +94%
- NENEW ENGLAND PGA FOUNDATION INC3× · 2020–2023 · $40k · revenue +236%
Funded once
- IOINSTITUTION OF JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY IN HAITIone grant, 2018 · $26k
- AIAMIGO INCone grant, 2022 · $15k
- SJST JOHNS HIGH SCHOOLone grant, 2019 · $11k
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.
Bridgespan's mission is to build a better world by strengthening the ability of mission-driven organizations and philanthropists to achieve breakthrough results in addressing society's most important challenges and opportunities.
Our mission is to improve quality of life by transforming the understanding, treatment, and care of the ocular surface.
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
The samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…
The mission of the breast cancer research foundation, inc. is to prevent and cure breast cancer by advancing the world's most promising research.
The mission of Dana-Farber Cancer Care Network (DFCCN) is to promote and support, directly or indirectly, the interests and purposes of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI).
Gloucester marine genomics institute's mission is to address critical challenges in ocean health, human health, and the environment through innovative marine biotechnology research and transformative science education. by combining…
Mass general brigham health plan's mission is to promote the health and wellness of our members, and to help ensure equitable, affordbale health care for the diverse communities we serve.
Our costs consist of acquiring, sorting and distributing food to 617 member agencies, transportation and logistics, and community outreach to 69 direct distribution sites such as gbfb mobile markets, and federal distributions for low…
Provider of pediatric healthcare, education, research & community service
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Breakthrough Miami Inc and the most unlike its peers is Morgan Pressel Foundation 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 23 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% 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.
50 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. 50 of the 93 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 DETECTOGETHER INC FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE 15-40 CONNECTION INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WEBSTER-DUDLEY INC ↗
- Who funds NEW ENGLAND PGA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds WORCESTER ART MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE PUBLIC GARDEN INC ↗
- Who funds EDESIA INC ↗
- Who funds BOCA HELPING HANDS INC ↗
- Who funds VIZCAYA MUSEUM AND GARDENS TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY IN HAITI INC ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds HILLSIDE RESTORATION PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Middlebury College ↗
- Who funds WORCESTER COUNTY FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WORCESTER INC ↗
- Who funds SHREWSBURY PITCHES IN INC ↗
- Who funds BIG DOG RANCH RESCUE INC ↗
- Who funds Grey Team Inc ↗
- Who funds ANGELS FOR HUMANITY ↗
- Who funds CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GOFUNDMEORG ↗
- Who funds WEBSTER DUDLEY FOOD SHARE INC ↗
- Who funds OPERATION SMILE INC ↗
- Who funds GENERATION CITIZEN INC ↗
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: Coghlin Family Foundation · Greater Worcester Community Foundation Inc · Tonna Charitable Trust · The George I Alden Trust · Schwartz Charitable Foundation · United Way of Central Massachusetts Inc · Boston Foundation Inc · Jmm Charitable Foundation · Tweddle Foundation · Coghlin Services Fund · Jacob and Anita Penzer Foundation · The Fletcher 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 Regan P Remillard 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.
- Women's Lunch Place Inc — 8% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust Inc — 3% of income from government
- Boys and Girls Club of Worcester Inc — 2% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Middlebury College — 1% of income from government
- Friends of the Public Garden Inc — 1% of income from government
- Worcester Art Museum — 1% of income from government
- Worcester County Food Bank Inc — 1% of income from government
- Palm Beach County Food Bank Inc — 0% of income from government
- Boston Symphony Orchestra Inc — 0% of income from government
- Big Dog Ranch Rescue Inc — 0% of income from government
- Pan-Massachusetts Challenge Inc — 0% of income from government
- Chapman Partnership 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 Regan P Remillard Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Regan P Remillard 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.