Skip to content
Fort Madison Sirrc Corporation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Fort Madison Sirrc Corporation

FORT MADISON SIRRC CORPORATION accumulates funds in anticipation of making grants to qualified, non-profit organizations within the community specifically for community betterment projects.

$250k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$250k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Recreation & Sports$2.6MCommunity Improvement$1.1MEnvironment$123kEducation$65kArts & Culture$44kFood & Nutrition$38k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$250,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$722k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOUTHEAST IOWA AQUATIC RESTORATION$250,000
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 (FY20–20, $38k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%COMMUNITY SERVICES COUNCIL INC: $38k → 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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.2M · 7 repeat orgs$733k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
9

Total granted

$3.2M
$733k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-8%
-5%

Still filing today

86%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
PhilanthropyRecreation & SportsEducationCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesOther
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

  • SI
    SOUTHEAST IOWA AQUATIC RESTORATION GROUP INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1.1M · revenue -97% · 99% of their budget
  • FM
    FORT MADISON RODEO CORPORATION
    5× · 2017–2024 · $665k · revenue +173%
  • FM
    FORT MADISON AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $620k · revenue -8% · 32% of their budget

Funded once

  • FM
    FORT MADISON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP
    one grant, 2021 · $450k · revenue -91% · 65% of their budget
  • FM
    FORT MADISON COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $75k
  • RI
    ROTARY INTERNATIONAL
    one grant, 2019 · $42k
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
Madison County Historical Society
Arts & Culture
2
Friends of the Historical Museum At Fort Missoula

The friends of the historical museum at fort missoula is organized exclusively for the purpose of aiding and supporting the historical museum at fort missoula to keep missoula's history alive for the enjoyment and education of the public.

—
3
West Madison Senior Citizens Center

To provide companionship, entertainment, and social opportunities for people age 60 and over.

—
4
Madison Arts Alliance Inc

Our mission is to interact with all artists, civic, and art organizations - acting as an advocate for arts in all forms in the madison, in area, and to promote the area as an arts and creative destination.

Arts & Culture
5
Altoona Area Chamber of Commerce

The promotion of altoona, ia

Community Improvement
6
James Whites Fort

To maintain a historic site

Arts & Culture
7
Madison Art Gallery
—
8
Adams County Development Council

To enhance, retain, and attract commercial, industrial, and agricultural growth, development, and diversity within adams county and its cities, towns and ports.

Community Improvement
9
Lee County Fair

To support agriculture education and development for youths in lee county, iowa.

—
10
Fore Midland
—
11
Madison Education Foundation

Promote enhanced funding of education programs and opportunities for the students of madison school district 321, madison county, idaho.

—
12
Madison Community Improvement Corpo

To advance, encourage, and promote industrial, economic, and civic development in the community of madison, ohio.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fort Madison Sports Complex Inc; the most unlike its peers is Community Services Council Inc. 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

11 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. 11 of the 16 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
3/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FORT MADISON RODEO CORPORATION: $665,000 · OtherFORT MADISON RODEO CORPORATIONFORT MADISON AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $620,000 · OtherFORT MADISON AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCECITY OF FORT MADISON: $378,800 · OtherCITY OF FORT MADISONSHEAFFER MEMORIAL GOLF PARK: $160,025 · OtherSHEAFFER MEMORIAL GOLF PARKFORT MADISON COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION FOUNDATION INC: $75,000 · Other+4 more: $105,000 · OtherSOUTHEAST IOWA AQUATIC RESTORATION GROUP INC: $1,050,000 · Recreation & SportsSOUTHEAST IOWA AQUATIC RESTORA…FORT MADISON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $450,000 · Community ImprovementFORT MADISON…FORT MADISON SPORTS COMPLEX INC: $270,000 · Youth DevelopmentTHREE RIVERS CONSERVATION FOUNDATIO: $47,501 · PhilanthropyHOLY TRINITY CATHOLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $25,000 · PhilanthropyTEST KITCHEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $40,000 · EducationCOMMUNITY SERVICES COUNCIL INC: $37,500 · Human Services
Other$2,003,825Recreation & Sports$1,050,000Community Improvement$450,000Youth Development$270,000Philanthropy$72,501Education$40,000Human Services$37,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOUTHEAST IOWA AQUATIC RESTORATION GROUP INC: $1,050,000 over 4y, 99% of budgetFORT MADISON RODEO CORPORATION: $665,000 over 5y, 18% of budgetFORT MADISON AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $620,000 over 8y, 32% of budgetFORT MADISON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $450,000 over 1y, 65% of budgetFORT MADISON SPORTS COMPLEX INC: $270,000 over 2y, 50% of budgetSHEAFFER MEMORIAL GOLF PARK: $160,025 over 2y, 25% of budgetTHREE RIVERS CONSERVATION FOUNDATIO: $47,501 over 2y, 33% of budgetTEST KITCHEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $40,000 over 1y, 28% of budgetCOMMUNITY SERVICES COUNCIL INC: $37,500 over 1y, 8.6% of budgetFORT MADISON AREA ARTS ASSOCIATION: $25,000 over 1y, 22% of budgetHOLY TRINITY CATHOLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 18% 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.

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.

Keokuk Area Community…William George Kuhlme…Lee County Youth Serv…
Keokuk Area Community FoundationIA22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Keokuk Area Community Foundation · William George Kuhlmeier · Lee County Youth Services Inc

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 Fort Madison Sirrc Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Fort Madison Sirrc Corporation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Fort Madison Sirrc Corporation?

    Find your warmest path to Fort Madison Sirrc Corporation 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.

    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 16 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 Fort Madison Sirrc’s 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