· Private foundation
Edward and Hannah M Rutledge Charities Inc
Its FY2025 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: 76% of EDWARD AND HANNAH M RUTLEDGE CHARITIES INC’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 · FY2025
- Under $10k108 grants · $227k
- $10k–50k19 grants · $363k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $418k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HOPE VILLAGE | $192,500 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER CHIPPEWA VALLEY | $75,000 |
| FAMILY SUPPORT CENTER | $50,000 |
| MOBILE MEALS OF CHIPPEWA FALLS | $50,000 |
| FEED MY PEOPLE FOOD BANK | $50,000 |
| CHIPPEWA YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION | $41,667 |
| VALLEY VINEYARD FOOD PANTRY | $30,000 |
| CHIPPEWA FALLS AREA SENIOR CENTER | $30,000 |
| LE PHILIPS CDC OUTREACH | $28,000 |
| BLOOMERNEW AUBURN FOOD PANTRY | $27,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $25,000 |
| AGNES' TABLE & COMMUNITY CENTER | $21,000 |
| COME NOW & EAT FOOD PANTRY | $20,000 |
| JIM FALLS COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY | $16,000 |
| STANLEY AREA FOOD PANTRY | $16,000 |
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 (FY20–25, $226k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
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 +25% since the first grant, against -53% for the ones you funded once.
260 repeat relationships — 90 still active in FY2025, 170 since wound down; 42 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, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $144k 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
- TOTHE OPEN DOOR CLINIC INC6× · 2020–2025 · $211k · revenue +133% · 40% of their budget
- CFCHIPPEWA FALLS AREA SENIOR CENTER INC6× · 2020–2025 · $155k · revenue +19%
- FSFAMILY SUPPORT CENTER5× · 2020–2025 · $155k · revenue +10%
Funded once
- HVHOPE VILLAGE-LANDMARK CHRISTIAN CHURCHone grant, 2022 · $29k
- WRWORKFORCE RESOURCE INCone grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +3%
- HHHUB HOMELESS SERVICES INCone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -53%
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.
To advance the lives of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities through creative community partnerships, vocational training, and employment opportunities.
The organization was formed for the purpose of providing access to quality health care for uninsured residents of chippewa, luce and mackinac counties of michigan by coordinating health care providers.
Educational child care
To facilitate, coordinate and promote safe, nurturing, home-like care for residents placed for foster care and for any other charitable and educational purposes related to promoting well-being of children in foster care.
Provide temporary assistance to needy individuals. Primary assistance with rent, utilities and food.
To protect and preserve natural and scenic land in chippewa county and the surrounding area.
The chippewa county humane association seeks to relieve the suffering of homeless companion animals by setting an example of excellence in animal care and placement, humane education, and community leadership.
Advocate for and support families who are homeless in our community by providing temporary housing and support services, and by fostering independence.
To protect and restore central michigan's land, water, and wildlife resources to improve the quality of life for all.
Improve the quality of life in our community.
To improve access to affordable healthcare in the Chippewa Valley area.
Dedicated to eliminating substandard housing and homelessness in the chippewa valley. also, to make adequate and affordable shelter a matter of conscience.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chippewa Valley Health Clinic Inc and the most unlike its peers is Workforce Resource Inc. 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 22 years old; the field is 22. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 16% startups (under 5 years old) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 24% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 7% 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.
20 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. 20 of the 453 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 CHIPPEWA AREA HISTORY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds FEED MY PEOPLE INC ↗
- Who funds THE OPEN DOOR CLINIC INC ↗
- Who funds CHIPPEWA FALLS AREA SENIOR CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds FAMILY SUPPORT CENTER ↗
- Who funds MOBILE MEALS INC OF CHIPPEWA FALLS ↗
- Who funds HOPE GOSPEL MISSION INC ↗
- Who funds LITERACY CHIPPEWA VALLEY ↗
- Who funds AGNES TABLE AND COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds CHIPPEWA VALLEY HEALTH CLINIC INC ↗
- Who funds CHIPPEWA YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Bloomer Area Food Pantry Inc ↗
- Who funds CURTIE CARES INC ↗
- Who funds WORKFORCE RESOURCE INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF EAU CLAIRE INC ↗
- Who funds HUB HOMELESS SERVICES 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 Casper Foundation · Community Foundation of Chippewa Co · Mayo Clinic Group Return · Eau Claire Community Foundation · United Way of the Greater Chippewa Valley Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Pablo Foundation Inc · Annmarie Foundation Inc · The Nordson Corporation Foundation · The Jamf Nation Global Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · Rcu 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 Edward and Hannah M Rutledge Charities Inc 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 Edward and Hannah M Rutledge Charities Inc?
Find your warmest path to Edward and Hannah M Rutledge Charities Inc 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.