· Private foundation
The Sylvan C Coleman 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 FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k12 grants · $59k
- $10k–50k15 grants · $225k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Womens Cancer Resource Center | $30,000 |
| Middlebury College | $25,000 |
| George Mark Children's House | $20,000 |
| Hartford Hospital Foundation | $20,000 |
| Connecticut Childrens Medical Cente | $15,000 |
| Connecticut Foodshare | $15,000 |
| Planned Parenthood | $15,000 |
| Commonwealth | $15,000 |
| Charlotte Maxwell Clinic | $10,000 |
| James Beard Foundation | $10,000 |
| Renbrook School | $10,000 |
| Hands On Hartford | $10,000 |
| The Town That Cares | $10,000 |
| Gifts of Love | $10,000 |
| Center for Reproductive Rights | $10,000 |
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 (FY19–24, $193k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 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 +38% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
49 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2024, 31 since wound down; 9 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, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $97k 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
- WCWomens Cancer Resource Center3× · 2019–2024 · $80k · revenue +23%
THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC6× · 2019–2024 · $60k · revenue +53%
COMMONWEAL6× · 2019–2024 · $55k · revenue +129%
Funded once
- CACAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK INCone grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +13%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $7k
- UNUCONN Neag School of Educationone grant, 2020 · $4k
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.
We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
Project Open Hand's mission is to improve health outcomes and quality of life by providing nutritious meals to the sick and vulnerable, caring for and educating our community.
Public health institute generates and promotes research, leadership and partnerships to build capacity for strong public health policy, programs, systems and practices.
Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
Women in global health (wgh) is a global movement and organization that brings together all genders and backgrounds to achieve gender equality in global health leadership.
Provider of pediatric healthcare, education, research & community service
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Global Fund for Women Inc and the most unlike its peers is The National Museum of Women in the Arts. 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 40 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 — 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.
48 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. 48 of the 67 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 Womens Cancer Resource Center ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds COMMONWEAL ↗
- Who funds ALIVE Inc ↗
- Who funds ACCESS REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE INC ↗
- Who funds Charlotte Maxwell Clinic ↗
- Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds BREAST CANCER ACTION ↗
- Who funds ALAMEDA POINT COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds DANCE PLACE ↗
- Who funds HOUSE OF RUTH ↗
- Who funds GIFTS OF LOVE INC ↗
- Who funds FORGE CITY WORKS INC ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Middlebury College ↗
- Who funds PROJECT HOPE - THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE HEALTH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds WADSWORTH ATHENEUM MUSEUM OF ART ↗
- Who funds THE DC CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds Guttmacher Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds George Mark Childrens Fund ↗
- Who funds THE JAMES BEARD FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HANDS ON HARTFORD INC ↗
- Who funds A SAFE PLACE ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT FOODSHARE INC ↗
- Who funds THE TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER ↗
- Who funds FOOD RUNNERS ↗
- Who funds National Women's Health Network ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION ↗
- Who funds CHRYSALIS CENTER 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 Clarence B Coleman and Joan F Coleman Charitable Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Aetna Foundation Inc · McNabb Foundation · Hartford Foundation for Public Giving · The California Wellness Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · The Auerbach Schiro Foundation · The William and Alice Mortensen Foundation · Sbm Charitable Foundation Inc · The William G Irwin Charity 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 Sylvan C Coleman 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.
- Chrysalis Center Inc — 93% of income from government
- Hands On Hartford Inc — 20% of income from government
- New Britain Museum of American Art Inc — 7% of income from government
- Connecticut Foodshare Inc — 5% of income from government
- Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art — 5% of income from government
- Connecticut Children's Medical Center — 5% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Middlebury College — 1% of income from government
- Forge City Works Inc — 1% of income from government
- National Dance Education Organization — 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 Sylvan C Coleman Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Sylvan C Coleman 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.