· Private foundation
The Scotto Laporte Charitable 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 FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k23 grants · $40k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $12k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Wings for Kids | $12,000 |
| Marine Toys for Tots Foundation | $5,000 |
| Greater Boston Food Bank | $3,000 |
| Think Outside the Vox | $3,000 |
| New Hampshire Catholic Charities | $3,000 |
| Betsys Park | $3,000 |
| Lowcountry Food Bank | $3,000 |
| Mukisa Community Initiative International | $3,000 |
| ROCA Inc | $1,500 |
| Boston After School & Beyond | $1,500 |
| Good Sports Inc | $1,500 |
| Squam Lakes Conservation Society | $1,500 |
| Squam Lakes Association | $1,500 |
| Lakes Region Conservation Trust | $1,000 |
| The Kilham Bear Center | $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 (FY21–25, $29k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 88% 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.
22 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 6 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, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k 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
- MTMARINE TOYS FOR TOTS FOUNDATION3× · 2022–2025 · $10k · revenue +14%
- WFWOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INC4× · 2021–2024 · $7k · revenue +102%
- GSGOOD SPORTS INC4× · 2022–2025 · $7k · revenue +31%
Funded once
- CRCHRISTOPHER REEVE FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $3k · revenue +27%
- SISeabrook Island Green Space Conservancyone grant, 2023 · $3k · revenue -74%
- SISLEEP IN HEAVENLY PEACE INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $500 · revenue +144%
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 Piscataquog Land Conservancy is a nonprofit land conservation organization founded in 1970. Its purpose is to conserve the natural and scenic environment of the Piscataquog, Souhegan and Nashua River watershed communities of southern…
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…
Kennebunk Land Trust's mission is to permanently conserve and steward land to benefit natural and human communities.
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…
Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.
The mission of Islesboro Islands Trust is to enhance the quality of residents' lives through the preservation of open space, educate all residents as to the value of the island's natural ecosystems, and act as an environmental advocate on…
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…
Our mission is to cultivate the resilience of our coastal pond ecosystems through science, collaboration, and education.
To acquire, protect, and manage open space in perpetuity for the benefit of wildlife and the community.
The Scarborough Land Trust is a private, non-profit, community-based organization with a mission to conserve and steward land where natural and agricultural resources, scenic vistas, and historical significance offer unique value to the…
To permanently protect and improve natural environments in Mid-Michigan by leading and inspiring actions that conserve vital habitats and waterways for the benefit of our entire community.
Protect Connecticuts farmland for agricultural use by purchasing and accepting donations of agricultural conservation easements
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Good Sports Inc and the most unlike its peers is American Diabetes Association. 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 22 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) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
32 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 32 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 WINGS FOR KIDS ↗
- Who funds MARINE TOYS FOR TOTS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BOSTON AFTER SCHOOL & BEYOND INC ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds GOOD SPORTS INC ↗
- Who funds SQUAM LAKES CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds GREATER BOSTON FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds Lakes Region Conservation Trust ↗
- Who funds THE KILHAM BEAR CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Loon Preservation Committee ↗
- Who funds UNITED SOUTH END SETTLEMENTS ↗
- Who funds SQUAM LAKES ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ROCA INC ↗
- Who funds Interlakes Community Caregivers Inc ↗
- Who funds BETSYS PARK ↗
- Who funds New Hampshire Catholic Charities ↗
- Who funds LOWCOUNTRY FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds CHRISTOPHER REEVE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LAST HOPE K9 RESCUE LTD ↗
- Who funds Mukisa Community Initiative International Inc ↗
- Who funds CASTLE PRESERVATION SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Seabrook Island Green Space Conservancy ↗
- Who funds THINK OUTSIDE THE VOX ↗
- Who funds CURIOUS LEARNING A GLOBAL LITERACY PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds BALD PEAK COMMUNITY FUND ↗
- Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds LAKES REGION FOOD PANTRY INC ↗
- Who funds Charity Navigator ↗
- Who funds BACKPACK BUDDIES SEABROOK ISLAND ↗
- Who funds SLEEP IN HEAVENLY PEACE INC ↗
- Who funds American Diabetes Association ↗
- Who funds Vinewood Parent Club ↗
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 · Lovett-Woodsum Foundation Inc · The Pamela and Laurence Tarica Foundation · The Schifrin Foundation Inc · Boston Foundation Inc · The Beach Foundation · Tosa Foundation · Hilltop Foundation Inc · The Grossman Family Charitable Foundation · Mathieson Family Foundation · William and Cynthia Marcus Family Charitable Trust · Pritchard 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 Scotto Laporte 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.
- Roca Inc — 78% of income from government
- Christopher Reeve Foundation — 49% of income from government
- Greater Boston Food Bank Inc — 22% of income from government
- Boston After School & Beyond Inc — 15% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Think Outside the Vox — 2% 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.