· Private foundation
Geary Rimmer Vincent Wolf Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k29 grants · $89k
- $10k–50k19 grants · $236k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MOUNT PISGAH CHURCH | $25,000 |
| BIG SHOULDERS FUND | $20,000 |
| CHICAGOLAND LUTHERAN EDUCATION FDTN | $20,000 |
| MIDTOWN METRO ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS | $15,000 |
| FREEDOM ALLIANCE SCHOLARSHIP FUND | $15,000 |
| SPECIAL OPERATIONS WARRIOR FOUNDATI | $10,660 |
| BIODYNAMIC ASSOCIATION | $10,000 |
| ERIE ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL | $10,000 |
| HILLSDALE COLLEGE | $10,000 |
| ACHROMA | $10,000 |
| MEALS ON WHEELS | $10,000 |
| MUHLENBERG COUNTY LITTLE LEAGUE | $10,000 |
| CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES | $10,000 |
| LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE | $10,000 |
| LOVE INC | $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 human-services grants (FY17–25, $165k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 53% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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
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 +35% since the first grant, against +15% for the ones you funded once.
60 repeat relationships — 37 still active in FY2025, 23 since wound down; 7 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, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $46k 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
- BSBig Shoulders Fund9× · 2017–2025 · $255k · revenue +67%
- EEERIE ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL9× · 2017–2025 · $150k · revenue +41%
FREEDOM ALLIANCE9× · 2017–2025 · $144k · revenue +112%
Funded once
- HFHABITAT FOR HUMANITY CHICAGOgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +324%
- FFFOUNDATION FOR SARCOIDOSIS RESEARCHgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +428%
- CCCALVARY COMMUNITY CHURCHone grant, 2024 · $10k
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 establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
Empowering financial professionals and consumers through world-class advocacy and education.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…
To promote public health, safety, and welfare through the improvement of the quality and quantity of drinking water and the development and furtherance of understanding of the problems relating thereto.
Lake Forest Graduate School of Management's mission is to bring the real world to business education and leadership development.
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
Jewelers of america, the most trusted and influential voice of the jewelry industry, empowers and unites its members through expert guidance and advocacy, driving excellence, integrity, and success in an ever-changing marketplace.
Engage actively and continuously in medical research, education and training in the practice of medicine in conjunction with the department of family medicine of the indiana university school of medicine and indiana university…
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Heritage Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation. 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 39 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
67 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. 67 of the 122 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 CHICAGOLAND LUTHERAN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Big Shoulders Fund ↗
- Who funds ERIE ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Midtown-Metro Achievement Centers ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL OPERATIONS WARRIOR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ACHROMA CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds TRINITY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds HILLSDALE COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds SUNRISE CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE CARE OF THE OHIO VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds Leadership Institute ↗
- Who funds Young America's Foundation ↗
- Who funds ERIE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ↗
- Who funds INNISBROOK ASSOCIATE SCHOLARSHIP FUND I ↗
- Who funds BIODYNAMIC ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds EdChoice Inc ↗
- Who funds Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches Inc ↗
- Who funds HOPE IGNITES CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds TRINITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HABITAT FOR HUMANITY CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds University of Illinois Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE MIAMI FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LAKE GENEVA FRESH AIR ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR SARCOIDOSIS RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Los Angeles ↗
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: Kunes Family Foundation · Alben F & Clara G Bates Foundation · Carol Bernick Family Foundation · Fifth Third Chicagoland Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Baird Foundation Inc · AbbVie Foundation · Ec Styberg Foundation Inc · Sbk Stearns Family Foundation · Otzen Family Foundation Incorporated · Adreani Family Foundation · The Anna Emery Hanson Charitable Foundation 1
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 Geary Rimmer Vincent Wolf 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.
- The Shriners' Hospital for Children — 6% of income from government
- Wounded Warrior Project Inc — 0% of income from government
- Food for the Poor Inc — 0% of income from government
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 Geary Rimmer Vincent Wolf Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Geary Rimmer Vincent Wolf 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.