· Private foundation
The Doolittle Family Foundation
Its FY2025 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k8 grants · $16k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $55k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $200k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JACKSONVILLE SYMPHONY | $150,000 |
| VERMONT SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA | $50,000 |
| ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION | $30,000 |
| NORTH FLORIDA LAND TRUST | $15,000 |
| WJCT | $10,000 |
| VISIONS | $4,000 |
| FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA | $2,000 |
| OKEMO MOUNTAIN SCHOOL | $2,000 |
| WALTHAM BOYS & GIRLS CLUB | $2,000 |
| HERO HOMES | $2,000 |
| SEA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION | $2,000 |
| SHELBURNE FARMS | $1,000 |
| MACA | $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 (FY17–25, $18k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 56% 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 +78% since the first grant, against +24% for the ones you funded once.
23 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- TCTHE CARROLL SCHOOL2× · 2017–2018 · $1.0M · revenue +76%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC2× · 2020–2024 · $115k · revenue +159%
- VSVERMONT SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA ASSOCIATION INC2× · 2023–2025 · $102k · revenue +67%
Funded once
- UOUNIVERSITY OF NORTHY FLORIDAone grant, 2018 · $375k
- WGWOMEN'S GIVING ALLIANCEone grant, 2017 · $27k
- HUHACKENSACK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTERone grant, 2023 · $25k
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 nantucket conservation foundation owns, protects, and stewards over 9,000 acres of land and coastal shoreline, conserves nantucket's rare and significant natural resources, and engages in impactful ecological research to inform…
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
The minnesota land trust protects and restores minnesota's most vital natural lands in order to provide wildlife habitat, clean water, outdoor experiences and scenic beauty for generations to come.
Eastern national promotes the public's understanding and support of america's national parks and other public trust partners by providing quality educational experiences, products and services.
Northeast wilderness trust is a regional land trust working to preserve and restore forever-wild landscapes for nature and people in new york, vermont, new hampshire, maine, massachusetts and connecticut.
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 franklin land trust works to conserve farms, forests, wildlands, and other natural resources significant to the quality of the environment, economy, and rural character of western massachusetts.
Protect Connecticuts farmland for agricultural use by purchasing and accepting donations of agricultural conservation easements
To cultivate and develop an expansive collection of trees, gardens, and plants for all to explore, enjoy and study; and to provide through education and stewardship, a greener, healthier, more beautiful environment.
To protect and restore the ecological health of forest park and marquam nature park, maintain and enhance their extensive trails networks, promote equitable access, and inspire diverse community appreciation and stewardship of these iconic…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Our mission is to ensure that the people of greater boston benefit from a vibrant, resilient, and inclusive waterfront, harbor, and islands; these spaces are equitable, accessible, and adapted to climate change; and to ensure our public,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Team Impact Inc and the most unlike its peers is Visionsservices for the Blind and Visually Impaired. 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 41 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
41 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. 41 of the 65 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 THE CARROLL SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds VERMONT SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds SHELBURNE FARMS ↗
- Who funds NORTH FLORIDA LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds WJCT INC ↗
- Who funds CONCORD LAND CONSERVATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS ↗
- Who funds CULTIVATE CARE FARMS INC ↗
- Who funds VISIONSSERVICES FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED ↗
- Who funds HERO HOMES INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds WALTHAM BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds The Inst for Regional Conservation ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE OCEAN CLEANUP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MANIFEZT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds TEAM IMPACT INC ↗
- Who funds COMPASSION & CHOICES ↗
- Who funds HOPE AND COMFORT INC ↗
- Who funds Miami Rescue Mission 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: The Vermont Community Foundation · The Community Foundation for Northeast Florida Inc · Ibm International Foundation · Gasper & Irene Lazzara Charitable Foundation · Pga Tour Inc · Boston Foundation Inc · Publix Super Markets Charities Inc · National Life Group Charitable Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management 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 Doolittle Family 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 Folklife Center — 90% of income from government
- North Florida Land Trust Inc — 81% of income from government
- The Inst for Regional Conservation — 35% of income from government
- Waltham Boys & Girls Club Inc — 29% of income from government
- Intervale Center Inc — 13% of income from government
- Sea Education Association Inc — 12% of income from government
- Vermont Symphony Orchestra Association Inc — 11% of income from government
- Shelburne Museum Inc — 9% of income from government
- Land's Sake Inc — 3% of income from government
- Shelburne Farms — 3% of income from government
- The Trustees of Reservations — 2% of income from government
- Lake Champlain Land Trust Inc — 1% of income from government
- Hope and Comfort Inc — 1% of income from government
- Vermont Public Co — 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 The Doolittle Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Doolittle Family 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.