· Private foundation
The Dorothy Babcock Family 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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 46% of THE DOROTHY BABCOCK FAMILY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k21 grants · $46k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MIDDLE EAST CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE | $10,000 |
| WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN | $10,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE | $5,000 |
| RAZOM INC | $5,000 |
| ALZHEIMERS ASSOCIATION | $5,000 |
| NOVA UKRAINE | $5,000 |
| PARTNERS IN HEALTH | $2,500 |
| LIGONIER VALLEY MEALS ON WHEELS | $2,000 |
| PERFECT EARTH PROJECT | $2,000 |
| PROJECT EATS | $2,000 |
| LONG ISLAND CARES | $2,000 |
| ENCINAL HIGH SCHOOL | $2,000 |
| WESTMORELAND FOOD BANK | $2,000 |
| HAMPTON'S COMMUNITY OUTREACH | $2,000 |
| FRESH AIR FUND | $1,500 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY21–24, $26k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 45% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +13% since the first grant, against -28% for the ones you funded once.
25 repeat relationships — 21 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 2 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, 70% 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
- IRInternational Rescue Committee INC4× · 2021–2024 · $18k · revenue +38%
- ADALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC4× · 2021–2024 · $12k · revenue +13%
- LILong Island Cares Inc4× · 2021–2024 · $9k · revenue +23%
Funded once
UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue -28%- FUFLORIDA UNITED METHODIST CHURCHone grant, 2021 · $2k
- TMTHE MOUNTAIN PLAYHOUSEone grant, 2021 · $2k · revenue -55%
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.
USA for UNHCR protects and supports refugees by mobilizing resources, elevating awareness, and driving action through a network of engaged supporters.
Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…
Dedicated to permanently preserve the natural, scenic and recreational resources of the Lake George Basin.
The primary mission of the Westchester Land Trust is to conserve, maintain and enhance the natural environment and resources of Westchester County and eastern Putnam County. The Trust acquires interests in land exhibiting important natural…
Food & water watch conducts extensive research and public education to ensure the food and water we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced. so we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of…
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…
The mission of the Land Conservation Assistance Network (LandCAN) is to support and develop innovative conservation programs to strengthen and sustain rural communities, economies and green businesses, and to support private sector…
We provide aid to refugees, both at home and abroad. Simply humanitarian.
The mission of the montana land reliance (mlr) is to partner with landowners to provide permanent protection for private lands that are significant for agricultural production, fish and wildlife habitat, and open space.
To create memorable guest experiences which promote actions to help save species, habitats, and the communities who share those same landscapes
(see schedule o)the lia foundation aims to implement programs, hold events, and conduct research that focus on areas critical to long island's economic development, including:- supporting small businesses- protecting long island's most…
To cultivate connection, share resources, and amplify the voices of people of color in vermont within the focus areas of land, environ- ment, agriculture, and foodways. liberation ecosystem, inc. is a col- laborative ecosystem for growing…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Project Eats Inc and the most unlike its peers is Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 37 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 5% 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.
22 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. 22 of the 30 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 International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds RAZOM INC ↗
- Who funds NOVA UKRAINE ↗
- Who funds ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Long Island Cares Inc ↗
- Who funds HAMPTONS COMMUNITY OUTREACH INC ↗
- Who funds LIGONIER VALLEY MEALS ON WHEELS ↗
- Who funds FRESH AIR FUND ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC ↗
- Who funds Bridgehampton Child Care and Recreational Center Inc ↗
- Who funds UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LOYALHANNA WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds LIGONIER VALLEY YOUNG MENS CHRISTIA ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds PECONIC LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds Canyon Heroes ↗
- Who funds FORT LIGONIER ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds PERFECT EARTH PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds PROJECT EATS INC ↗
- Who funds LIGONIER VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds THE MOUNTAIN PLAYHOUSE ↗
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: Rk Mellon Family Foundation · Laurel Ridge Foundation Inc · Richard King Mellon Foundation · The Pittsburgh Foundation · The Tomahawk Hill Foundation · Summit Foundation · Katherine Mabis McKenna Foundation · The New York Community Trust · Jewish Communal Fund · 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 The Dorothy Babcock Family 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 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.