Skip to content
Eo Companies at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Eo Companies

Eo strengthens communities by expanding education, building the workforce, and addressing economic challenges, so people have more opportunities to succeed.

$6.9M
Granted FY2025still arriving
26
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$634k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$18MEducation$403kPublic Safety & Disaster$236kYouth Development$188kFood & Nutrition$132kEmployment$109kReligion$8kCommunity Improvement$6kOther$0
02FY2025 · 26 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 26 grants below total $6,031,680, the rows itemized in this filing. The $6,906,553 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $874,873 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k15 grants · $2.4M
  • $250k+11 grants · $3.7M
$222,151
Median grant
1
States reached
$44M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BALLAD HEALTH CENTER EARLY LEARNING$634,460
LIVE LAUGH LEARN$459,464
RADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER$348,809
ITTY BITTIES ACADEMY$298,839
THE IMAGINATION STATION$292,122
BRIGHT BEGINNINGS DAY CARE INC$283,869
BALLAD HEALTH CENTER EARLY LEARNING$275,639
RAINBOW RIDERS CHILDCARE CENTER$274,947
KIDS KIKKIN' IT PREK$265,800
LIDDLE TYKES DAYCARE$264,955
TENDER TOTS LEARNING ACADEMY$252,558
VA TECH CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER$244,081
BALLAD HEALTH CENTER EARLY LEARNING$222,151
UNITED WAY OD SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA$211,306
BLUE MOUNTAIN THERAPY$210,528
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–25, $2.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 22% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%BALLAD HEALTH CENTER EARLY LEARNING: $634k → 11%BALLAD HEALTH CENTER EARLY LEARNING: $276k → 22%RADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $353k → 14%KIDS & CO: $100k → 12%RADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $349k → 14%MOUNTAIN EMPIRE OLDER CITIZENS INC: $8k → 22%RADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT: $254k → 14%BALLAD HEALTH CENTER EARLY LEARNING: $222k → 18%RADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT: $53k → 14%RADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT: $27k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$17M · 40 repeat orgs$2.2M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +67% since the first grant, against +46% for those funded once.

40 repeat relationships: 21 still active in FY2025, 19 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

40
26

Total granted

$17M
$830k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+67%
+46%

Still filing today

20%
19%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.3M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’23’24’25
Human ServicesPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentEmploymentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • RC
    RADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $1.0M · revenue +624% · 88% of their budget
  • VI
    VALLEY INTERFAITH CHILD CARE CENTER INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $613k · revenue +67% · 29% of their budget
  • PC
    PULASKI COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER
    4× · 2021–2025 · $412k · revenue +141% · 41% of their budget

Funded once

  • GH
    GILES HEALTH AND FAMILY CENTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +83%
  • KC
    KUEHG CORP DBA KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC
    one grant, 2021 · $68k
  • MT
    MARY THOMAS
    one grant, 2023 · $67k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Piedmont Child Care Center Inc

To provide quality early childhood care and education through: 1) offering developmentally-appropriate educational programs, 2) providing for the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of each child, and 3) encouraging…

Human Services
2
Virginia Child Care Resource and Referral Network

Contracts with child care resource agencies to provide assistance to working parents in locating and identifying child care programs and to collect, maintain, and disseminate

—
3
Nek Community Growth Center

Education of childcare workers

Education
4
Riceville Community Daycare Inc
Human Services
5
Gap Community Child Care Center

Gap inc operates a community based early child care and education program providing high quality and comprehensive services to children ages 6 weeks to 5 years and thier families.

—
6
Village Early Learning Center

Child care and pre-school program open year round for children ages fifteen months to five years of age.

Education
7
Barnesville Child Day Care Center

Child care and education

Human Services
8
Thomasville Community Center Inc

To provide child care

Recreation & Sports
9
Bennington County Child Care Associates

Training for early child care

—
10
The Child Care and Learning Center

The establishment and operation of a child learning/daycare facility for the use, benefit, and general welfare of the children of rappahannock county, virginia.

Education
11
Holyoke Community Childcare

Holyoke Community Childcare HCC cultivates child, family and community well-being and progress.

Human Services
12
Community Child Care Center

To promote each child's development by providing high quality early childhood education.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Eo Companies; the most unlike its peers is Southwest Virginia Workforce Development Board. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 68 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
11/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LIVE LAUGH LEARN: $1,440,656 · OtherLIVE LAUGH LEARNTHE IMAGINATION STATION: $1,180,306 · OtherTHE IMAGINATION STATIONRAINBOW RIDERS CHILDCARE CENTER: $1,075,629 · OtherRAINBOW RIDERS CHILDCARE CENTERBLUE MOUNTAIN THERAPY: $1,005,488 · OtherBLUE MOUNTAIN THERAPYBRIGHT BEGINNINGS DAY CARE INC: $950,559 · OtherBRIGHT BEGINNINGS DAY CARE INCITTY BITTIES ACADEMY: $897,939 · OtherITTY BITTIES ACADEMYLIDDLE TYKES DAYCARE: $852,513 · OtherLIDDLE TYKES DAYCAREVIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY: $783,003 · OtherDISCOVERY DAYCARE INC: $760,185 · OtherTENDER TOTS LEARNING ACADEMY: $742,405 · OtherKIDS KIKKIN' IT PREK: $727,593 · OtherLIDDLE ADVENTURES LEARNING: $581,536 · Other+46 more: $4,247,906 · Other+46 moreBallad Health Center for Early Learning: $1,132,250 · Human ServicesBallad Health Cen…RADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT INC: $1,036,202 · Human ServicesRADFORD CHILD DEV…VALLEY INTERFAITH CHILD CARE CENTER INC: $612,878 · Human ServicesVALLEY INTERFAITH…GILES HEALTH AND FAMILY CENTER INC: $100,275 · Human Services+2 more: $65,984 · Human ServicesROOFTOP OF VIRGINIA CAP: $511,149 · Community ImprovementPULASKI COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER: $411,600 · Youth DevelopmentEO COMPANIES: $211,306 · PhilanthropySOUTHWEST VIRGINIA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD: $108,643 · Employment
Other$15,245,718Human Services$2,947,589Community Improvement$511,149Youth Development$411,600Philanthropy$211,306Employment$108,643

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBallad Health Center for Early Learning: $1,132,250 over 1y, 28% of budgetRADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT INC: $1,036,202 over 5y, 88% of budgetVALLEY INTERFAITH CHILD CARE CENTER INC: $612,878 over 5y, 29% of budgetROOFTOP OF VIRGINIA CAP: $511,149 over 3y, 5.2% of budgetPULASKI COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER: $411,600 over 4y, 41% of budgetPEOPLE INCORPORATED OF VIRGINIA: $227,353 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetEO COMPANIES: $211,306 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of the Mountain Empire: $160,334 over 2y, 9.2% of budgetSOUTHWEST VIRGINIA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD: $108,643 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetGILES HEALTH AND FAMILY CENTER INC: $100,275 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetGirls Incorporated of Bristol: $80,674 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetGraceway MinistriesGrace A Child USA: $57,909 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetYMCA OF PULASKI COUNTY: $37,302 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetMOUNTAIN EMPIRE OLDER CITIZENS INC: $8,075 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCLINCH VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $5,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds Ballad Health Center for Early Learning ↗
  • Who funds RADFORD CHILD DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds VALLEY INTERFAITH CHILD CARE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds ROOFTOP OF VIRGINIA CAP ↗
  • Who funds PULASKI COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds PEOPLE INCORPORATED OF VIRGINIA ↗
  • Who funds EO COMPANIES ↗
  • Who funds Boys & Girls Club of the Mountain Empire ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD ↗
  • Who funds GILES HEALTH AND FAMILY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Girls Incorporated of Bristol ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The James W and Franc…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The James W and Frances Gibson McGlothlin FoundationVA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The James W and Frances Gibson McGlothlin Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Eo Companies funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Eo Companies. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 68 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Eo Companies’ filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home