· Private foundation
Arthur B Schultz Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 66% of Arthur B Schultz 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 $10k25 grants · $105k
- $10k–50k15 grants · $198k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Possibility Labs | $50,000 |
| Northern Kenya Fund | $26,000 |
| Creative Action Institute | $15,000 |
| The Girls Foundation of Tanzania | $15,000 |
| Street Business School | $12,500 |
| Friends of Transitions Guatemala | $12,500 |
| Kyaninga Child Development Center | $12,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $12,500 |
| Jifindishe | $12,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $12,500 |
| Gulu Persons Disabled Network | $12,500 |
| Young Strong Mothers Foundation | $12,500 |
| Ascated | $11,500 |
| Nurturing Minds | $10,000 |
| Abaana Community Outreach Africa | $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 US giving — 59% of grant dollars ($1.4M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 41% that went abroad ($973k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $200k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% 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
Beyond the US — 41% of all-years giving ($973k)
8 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 39% of Arthur B Schultz Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +93% since the first grant, against +93% for the ones you funded once.
46 repeat relationships — 25 still active in FY2024, 21 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, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k 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
POSSIBILITY LABS2× · 2023–2024 · $111k · revenue +116%- CACREATIVE ACTION INSTITUTE INC8× · 2017–2024 · $111k · revenue +612%
- KIKOMERA INC5× · 2017–2021 · $73k · revenue +92%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $133k
- OWOne World Children's Fund - Akili Dadaone grant, 2017 · $15k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $13k
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.
Strategies for International Development (SID) develops, applies, and promotes better methods for eradicating rural poverty. We help small farmers make the transition from subsistence to successful commercial farming. We carryout programs…
MAIA is creating a generation of empowered leaders who have the knowledge and resources they need to lead choice-filled lives, break cycles of poverty, and ignite transformational change in their communities.
To partner with women to care for the forest, waters, and communities essential to mitigating climate change while preparing women to lead; and to help environmental conservation oganizations to become more diverse and welcoming.
The Natura Bolivia Foundation is dedicated to implementing, and evaluating the impact of conservation and development programs, with a focus on watershed conservation, protected areas, and incentive based conservation in Bolivia. We work…
EWB International seeks to promote collaboration of the global EWB movement. Together we work towards a sustainable world, where engineering enables long-term positive social and economic development, for the benefit of people and the…
The world is grappling with complex problems, including climate change, war, poverty, and ongoing human rights violations. These issues disproportionately impact women, particularly in developing countries. In nations recovering from…
To offer the dignity of fair employment to people living in impoverished communities, who become transformational agents of global forest restoration.
The Pangea Network empowers women and youth through access to training and education in Kenya and the U.S. Motivated individuals are empowered with knowledge, skills and ongoing network of support in order to realize their potential and…
To strengthen young women's civic participation and leadership
Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
The Sierra Fund (TSF) is a non-profit organization with a mission to restore ecosystem and community resiliency in the Sierra Nevada.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Amplify Girls Inc and the most unlike its peers is Lander Nordic Ski 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 13 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 3% 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.
37 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. 37 of the 99 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 POSSIBILITY LABS ↗
- Who funds CREATIVE ACTION INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds STREET BUSINESS SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds KOMERA INC ↗
- Who funds The Girls Foundation of Tanzania ↗
- Who funds TRANSITIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NURTURING MINDS INC ↗
- Who funds CIELO DE AMOR ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF TRANSITIONS GUATEMALA ↗
- Who funds A LEG TO STAND ON INC ↗
- Who funds LIMITLESS HORIZONS IXIL INC ↗
- Who funds AMPLIFY GIRLS INC ↗
- Who funds WITH WOMEN KISOBOKA ↗
- Who funds Nevada Nordic ↗
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: SK2 Fund · Fairview Foundation · Together Women Rise · Wyoming Community Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Arthur B Schultz 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.
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 Arthur B Schultz Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Arthur B Schultz 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.