· Private foundation
Edwin J Wadas Foundation 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: 93% of EDWIN J WADAS FOUNDATION 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 $10k32 grants · $131k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $279k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $453k
- $250k+1 grant · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BUDDA DAME THUKA TEMPLE | $250,000 |
| UTICA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT | $237,715 |
| TOWN OF TRENTON | $113,813 |
| HERKIMER COUNTY CHAPTER NYSARC INC | $101,509 |
| ROME BASEBALL ASSOCIATION INC | $35,000 |
| BOONVILLE YOUTH ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION | $32,606 |
| Individual grant recipient | $30,510 |
| Individual grant recipient | $28,187 |
| FRIENDS OF WOODCRAFT | $24,961 |
| DOLGEVILLE POP WARNER FOOTBALL | $21,726 |
| UTICA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT | $16,700 |
| Individual grant recipient | $16,548 |
| CENTER FOR FAMILY LIFE AND RECOVERY | $14,918 |
| ROME GIRLS SOFTBALL LEAGUE | $12,485 |
| KELBERMAN CENTER | $12,010 |
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 (FY19–25, $32k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, 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 +56% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
91 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2025, 75 since wound down; 28 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, 36% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $714k 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
- ICINTEGRATED COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES NETWORK INC3× · 2019–2023 · $80k · revenue +155%
- TMTHE MIDTOWN UTICA COMMUNITY CENTER INC4× · 2021–2025 · $70k · revenue +881% · 45% of their budget
- CSCOLISEUM SOCCER CLUB INC3× · 2023–2025 · $46k · revenue +68%
Funded once
- WYWESTMORELAND YOUTH BASEBALL AND SOFTBALLone grant, 2023 · $249k
- MYMID YORK LIBRARY SYSTEMone grant, 2024 · $147k · revenue -8%
- IICANone grant, 2022 · $111k
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.
Youth sports and recreation for all to help develop social skills.
Recreational soccer program
Promote hockey to urban youth ages 3-18 years old in the utica,ny and surrounding areas.
Our year long baseball related programs help to teach all facets of the sport while achieving the highest level of team play and sportsmanship to over 100 youths.
Community youth soccer league
To foster growth and development of youth under the age of 19 through the sport of soccer. the league administers the orderly management of the governmental affairs of the game of soccer in the amityville area through the work of…
To provide a place for youth to play organized sports in the eastern york area.
The york youth soccer league (yysl) is a non profit organization dedicated to providing the youth of york county with the opportunity to participate in a recreational soccer league.
Childrens Recreational Sports Association
Organized to construct, own, operate and maintain recreational facilities and grounds and all usual and necessary accessories to conduct baseball games, athletic sport, exhibitions and places of amusement and recreation
To implant firmly in the youth of the community the ideas of sportsmanship, honesty, loyalty, courage, and reverence by participating in organized soccer
Play little league baseball
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Neighborhood Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is American Heart Association Inc. 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 25 years old; the field is 26. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 15% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 8% 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.
25 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. 25 of the 235 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.
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 Community Foundation of Herkimer and Oneida Counties Inc · Bank of Utica Foundation Inc · Indium Corporation and Macartney Family Foundation Inc · Utica National Group Foundation Inc · United Way of the Mohawk Valley Inc · Rome Community Foundation · Joseph and Inez E Carbone Foundation · The Rob Esche Save of the Day Foundation Inc · Hazen B Hinman Sr Foundation Inc · The James H Wurz Jr and Edward T Wurz Sr Foundation · Mother Cabrini Health Foundation Inc · Baird 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 Edwin J Wadas Foundation 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.