· Private foundation
The Windover Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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 $10k4 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k18 grants · $388k
- $50k–250k11 grants · $695k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL | $120,000 |
| KENNEBEC LAND TRUST | $100,000 |
| BOSTON NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT | $75,000 |
| SAMARITANS INC | $50,000 |
| GREAT POND MOUNTAIN CONSERVATION TRUST | $50,000 |
| DENOVO CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND HEALING | $50,000 |
| THE BROOKLINE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH | $50,000 |
| RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CARE | $50,000 |
| GOOD SHERPARD FOOD BANK | $50,000 |
| STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSN | $50,000 |
| THE NORTHERN LIGHTHOUSE | $50,000 |
| BEANTOWN BABY DIAPER BANK | $30,000 |
| SAINT ANDRE HOME | $30,000 |
| THE LIFEFLIGHT FDN | $30,000 |
| Y2Y NETWORK | $30,000 |
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 (FY18–25, $296k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 43% 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 +36% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.
32 repeat relationships — 20 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 11 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, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $223k 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
- BNBoston Neighborhood Support Inc3× · 2023–2025 · $400k · revenue +111% · 54% of their budget
- CHChildren's Hospital Corporation4× · 2020–2025 · $280k · revenue +55%
- BCBROOKLINE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC DBA THE BROOKLINE CENTER3× · 2023–2025 · $150k · revenue +61%
Funded once
- SAST ANDREW'S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $200k · revenue +68%
- SAST ANDREWS EPISCOPAL CHURCHone grant, 2017 · $200k
- SAST ANDREWSone grant, 2019 · $200k
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 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.
To preserve and protect land surrounding the appalachian trail in maine for public benefit.
Maine Historical Society, founded in 1822, is a private non-profit whose mission is to preserve and share Maine's story. Based in Portland, we work closely with communities and partners throughout the state, and serve a statewide and…
The mission of the mount desert land & garden preserve is to conserve and share the beauty of our historic lands and gardens.
Kennebunk Land Trust's mission is to permanently conserve and steward land to benefit natural and human communities.
Mhic's mission is to be an innovative private financier of afforable housing and community development throughout new england, providing financing that would not otherwise be available, and extending the impact of that financing to ensure…
Maine Behavioral Healthcare provides a seamless and compassionate continuum of care through a community of providers collaborating to promote recovery and the overall mental and physical well-being of those we are privileged to serve.
Maine preservation promotes and preserves historic places, buildings, downtowns and neighborhoods, stenghtening the cultural and economic vitality of maine communities.
A broad multi-disciplinary network that works to ensure we can all live healthy, engaged, and secure lives as we age in our homes and communities. With the voices of people with lived experience, we work on policy issues related to…
Maha breaks down barriers facing first-time and first-generation home buyers and owners through education, counseling, advocacy, and grassroots organizing.
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…
To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustful environment through the expertise, committment, and compassion of our family of caregivers.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Blue Hill Heritage Trust and the most unlike its peers is Hewnoaks Artist Colony. 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 39 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
57 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. 57 of the 92 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 DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds Boston Neighborhood Support Inc ↗
- Who funds GREAT POND MOUNTAIN CONSERVATION TR ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Corporation ↗
- Who funds ST ANDREW'S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds BROOKLINE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC DBA THE BROOKLINE CENTER ↗
- Who funds RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CARE INC ↗
- Who funds SAMARITANS INC ↗
- Who funds DE NOVO CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND HEALING ↗
- Who funds THE KENNEBEC LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds CAMBRIDGE COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds AUGUSTA FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds THE NORTHERN LIGHTHOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds AUGUSTA TEEN CENTER OF THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ↗
- Who funds Good Shepherd Food Bank ↗
- Who funds ODYSSEY OPERA OF BOSTON INC ↗
- Who funds Maine Appalachian Trail Club ↗
- Who funds KENNEBEC HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds YORK LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds STRAWBERY BANKE MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds Y2Y NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds ARTSTREAM INC ↗
- Who funds THE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds TEDFORD HOUSING ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds PINE TREE SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds READFIELD UNION MEETING HOUSE CO ↗
- Who funds LifeFlight Foundation ↗
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: Maine Community Foundation Inc · Stephen & Tabitha King Foundation Inc · Kennebec Savings Bank Foundation · Simmons Foundation - PerkinsThompson · Onion Foundation · Bangor Savings Bank Foundation · Agnes M Lindsay Trust · Davis Family Foundation · Elmina B Sewall Foundation · Franklin Savings Bank Community Development Foundation · Maine Health Access Foundation Inc · Fisher Charitable 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 Windover 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.
- Riverside Community Care Inc — 58% of income from government
- Volunteers of America of Massachusetts Inc — 46% of income from government
- Samaritans Inc — 31% of income from government
- Walker Inc — 26% of income from government
- Children's Hospital Corporation — 10% of income from government
- De Novo Center for Justice and Healing — 9% of income from government
- Cambridge Community Center Inc — 8% 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 Windover Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Windover 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.