· Private foundation
The Bailey Charitable 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 $10k5 grants · $20k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $143k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TOWN OF STODDARD TREASURER | $20,000 |
| TOWN OF STODDARD TREASURER | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
| MOHONK PRESERVE | $15,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $15,000 |
| HUBBARD BROOK RESEARCH FOUNDATION | $12,500 |
| ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY | $10,000 |
| THE HARRIS CENTER FOR CONSERVATION EDUCATION | $10,000 |
| DISTANT HILL GARDENS & NATURE TRAIL | $10,000 |
| ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY | $10,000 |
| HANOVER CONSERVANCY | $5,000 |
| THE LYME FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| HANOVER CONSERVANCY | $5,000 |
| LYME HISTORIANS | $2,500 |
| UTILITY CLUB OF LYME | $2,500 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 96% of your 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.
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 +42% since the first grant, against +34% for the ones you funded once.
24 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 4 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, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
- MPMOHONK PRESERVE INC8× · 2017–2024 · $193k · revenue +25%
- TMThe Monadnock Conservancy6× · 2017–2022 · $111k · revenue +85%
- CFCENTER FOR NORTHERN WOODLANDS EDUCATION INC5× · 2017–2021 · $80k · revenue +32%
Funded once
- CCCHESHIRE COUNTY CONSERVATION DISRICTone grant, 2018 · $5k
- CNCHARLESTOWN NH ROTARY FDTNone grant, 2018 · $5k
- DHDISTANT HILL GARDENSone grant, 2020 · $5k
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 wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…
The mission of Midcoast Conservancy is to protect vital lands and waters on a scale that matters and to inspire wonder and action on behalf of all species and the Earth.
Kestrel land trust conserves and cares for forests, farms, and riverways in the connecticut river valley of western massachusetts while nurturing an enduring love of the land
Preserves the natural beauty & resources of rehoboth, ma through conservation and ownership. maintains trails and hosts educational programming about wildlife and plants to encourage public appreciation and stewardship of our natural…
Education and scientific research
The Land Conservancy of Ridgefield, Inc. ("the Land Conservancy"), founded in 1967, preserves and protects, for the general benefit of the public, Ridgefield, Connecticut's natural resources including land and water resources, the plant…
Conserving land, water and wildlife habitat for the communities of northwest hancock county. protecting our legacy of: abundant wildlife habitat and biodiversity clean water rural character and scenic beauty working forests and farms…
The monhegan associates is a land trust dedicated to the ongoing preservation of the natural wild beauty and biotic communities of more than 350 acres of wildlands on monhegan island in maine.
Woodlawn nurtures curiosity and a sense of place by promoting downeast maine's cultural heritage through educational and recreational experiences. under the governance of the hancock county trustees of public reservations, woodlawn offers…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hanover Conservancy and the most unlike its peers is The Rolling Dog Farm. 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 34 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 MOHONK PRESERVE INC ↗
- Who funds The Monadnock Conservancy ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR NORTHERN WOODLANDS EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds HARRIS CENTER FOR CONSERVATION EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE VERMONT CENTER FOR ECOSTUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds HUBBARD BROOK RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds VERMONT WOODLANDS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE MILL HOLLOW HERITAGE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Walpole Historical Society ↗
- Who funds HANOVER CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds THE LYME FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF THE CUSHING ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds THE ROLLING DOG FARM ↗
- Who funds THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE ↗
- Who funds THE DEE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LYME HISTORIANS 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: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · Allan B Roby & Frances M Roby Charitable Trust · Davis Conservation Foundation · Emily Landecker Foundation Inc · Mascoma Bank Foundation · The Vermont Community Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Shell USA Company Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc
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 The Bailey Charitable 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.
- Vermont Woodlands Association — 21% of income from government
- Hubbard Brook Research Foundation — 6% of income from government
- The Vermont Center for Ecostudies Inc — 4% 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 The Bailey Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Bailey Charitable 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.