Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Mary Jane Brooks Charitable Trust

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.

$616k
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$79k
Largest
01What you fund
0198% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Health$1.9MEducation$569kFood & Nutrition$537kHuman Services$385kArts & Culture$231kYouth Development$168kRecreation & Sports$165kPublic Benefit$129kOther$0
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $227k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $380k
$32,714
Median grant
2
States reached
$8.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TRINITY HEALTH SYSTEM SCHOOL$79,007
FARMACY WV PRESCRIPTIONS FOR$75,000
Individual grant recipient$62,000
TRINITY HEALTH SYSTEM OUTPATIENT PT$60,000
VALLEY HOSPICE$54,365
OHIO VALLEY YOUTH NETWORK$50,000
THE SOUP KITCHEN OF GREATER WHEELIN$45,000
JEFFERSON COUNTY JOINT VOCATIONAL$44,140
TRINITY HEALTH SYSTEM MEDICAL LAB$32,714
EASTER SEALS$28,111
CHANGE INC$19,755
UNITED WAY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY$16,000
JEFFERSON COUNTY WELFARE LEAGUE$15,000
SMITHFIELD FRIENDS CHURCH FOOD$15,000
FRIENDSHIP PARK DISTRICT OF$11,230
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $70k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%THE FISH INC: $10k → 16%CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $60k → 19%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

69%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$3.3M · 27 repeat orgs$1.5M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +56% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.

27 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 17 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
33

Total granted

$3.3M
$1.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+56%
+19%

Still filing today

48%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $189k 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
HealthFood & NutritionHuman ServicesAnimalsEducationYouth DevelopmentOther

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

  • VH
    VALLEY HOSPICE INC
    4× · 2017–2025 · $260k · revenue +56%
  • OV
    OHIO VALLEY HEALTH CENTER
    5× · 2017–2023 · $228k · revenue +218% · 79% of their budget
  • FU
    FRANCISCAN UNIVERSITY OF STEUBENVILLE
    2× · 2018–2021 · $215k · revenue +81%

Funded once

  • PT
    PRIME TIME
    one grant, 2019 · $103k
  • PT
    PRIME TIME OFFICE ON AGING
    one grant, 2022 · $100k
  • JC
    JEFFERSON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON
    one grant, 2020 · $75k

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

04Your field

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.

1
Ohio Hills Health Services

Ohio hills health services is a non-profit health care operation, organized by communities in eastern ohio to promote healthy lifestyles and to provide preventative and comprehensive medical and dental care for area residents. the primary…

2
Ohio Valley Recovery Inc

To offer support to those recovering from addictions

Human Services
3
Ohio Valley Goodwill Industries

The mission of ohio valley goodwill industries rehabilitation center, inc. is to provide vocational rehabilitation, training, and employment services to individuals with either disabilities or social and economic barriers to full employment

4
Catholic Charities Southwestern Ohio

Catholic Charities Southwestern Ohio serves and empowers people through God's love in their times of vulnerability. We do so through a full range of local services that engage the community in building solidarity.

Human Services
5
Hopewell Health Centers Inc

Provide access to affordable high quality integrated care for all. Our organization offers a wide range of services, which includes comprehensive behavioral health care, dental health care, and primary health care. Hopewell Health Centers…

6
Hospice & Palliative Care of the Ohio Valley Inc

Helping individuals live with dignity through the final stage of life.

Human Services
7
Ohio Voice

Our mission is to support and grow the ecosystem of non-profit, non-partisan organizations doing year-round civic engagement with underrepresented communities in order to improve people's lives.

Public Benefit
8
Columbus Alliance for Battered Women Inc dba Hope Harbour

Columbus alliance for battered women provides emergency shelter, security, crisis intervention, and advocacy for adult and child victims of domestic violence.

Human Services
9
Abortion Fund of Ohio

Abortion Fund of Ohio provides financial assistance and practical support (transportation / housing / etc) to help patients afford contraception, emergency contraception, and abortion services.

Health
10
West Ohio Community Action Partnership

Organized for the purpose of creating, developing and effecting programs and projects designed to enhance the economic development of Allen, Auglaize, and Mercer Counties and its citizens, particularly to those areas of the community and…

Community Improvement
11
The Arc of the Mid Ohio Valley Inc

Mission is to promote and advocate for the welfare of people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities.

12
Muskingum Valley Health Center

To provide affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare.

Health

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of Jefferson County and the most unlike its peers is Old Fort Steuben Project 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyWheeling Community Developm…Volunteer Fire DepartmentsCatholic Diocese Infrastruc…Regional Community ServicesVulnerable Population Suppo…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 38 years old; the field is 23. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number17%4%<5yr11%0%5–10yr19%17%10–20yr15%29%20–35yr13%33%35–55yr24%17%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value17%4%<5yr11%0%5–10yr19%10%10–20yr15%30%20–35yr13%40%35–55yr24%16%55yr+

The field is 17% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 0.0% lost their exemption, against 8% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/25
the rest of the field
8%
73/939

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.

04the grantee network

23 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 23 of the 67 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/23
Grantees still filing
16/23
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

VALLEY HOSPICE INC — $259,541 · OtherVALLEY HOSPICE INCSTEUBENVILLE CITY SCHOOLS — $209,046 · OtherSTEUBENVILLE CITY SCHOOLSTRINITY HEALTH SYSTEM SCHOOL — $207,116 · OtherTRINITY HEALTH SYSTEM SCHOOLTRINITY HEALTH SYSTEMS — $203,012 · OtherTRINITY HEALTH SYSTEMSTHE SOUP KITCHEN — $162,591 · OtherFARMACY WV PRESCRIPTIONS FOR — $145,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient — $128,500 · OtherURBAN MISSION MINISTRIES INC — $128,300 · OtherJEFFERSON COUNTY DRUG COURT — $119,429 · Other+45 more — $2,013,868 · Other+45 moreOHIO VALLEY HEALTH CENTER — $227,568 · HealthOHIO VALLEY …AUGUSTA LEVY LEARNING CENTER INC — $175,000 · HealthAUGUSTA LEVY…RURAL EMERGENCYTRAUMA INSTITUTE INC — $75,147 · HealthRURAL EMERGE…EASTER SEAL REHABILITATION CENTER INC — $24,926 · Health+1 more — $15,000 · HealthFRANCISCAN UNIVERSITY OF STEUBENVILLE — $215,121 · EducationOhio Valley Youth Network — $138,389 · Youth DevelopmentFARMacyWV — $75,000 · Food & NutritionGROW OHIO VALLEY INC — $25,434 · Food & NutritionCommunity Bread Basket Inc — $20,000 · Food & NutritionCHANGE INC — $102,274 · EmploymentJEFFERSON COUNTY ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE — $65,000 · AnimalsJEFFERSON COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY — $27,322 · Animals
Other$3,576,403Health$517,641Education$215,121Youth Development$138,389Food & Nutrition$120,434Employment$102,274Animals$92,322

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetVALLEY HOSPICE INC — $259,541 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetOHIO VALLEY HEALTH CENTER — $227,568 over 5y, 79% of budgetFRANCISCAN UNIVERSITY OF STEUBENVILLE — $215,121 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAUGUSTA LEVY LEARNING CENTER INC — $175,000 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetOhio Valley Youth Network — $138,389 over 4y, 16% of budgetURBAN MISSION MINISTRIES INC — $128,300 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetCHANGE INC — $102,274 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetOLD FORT STEUBEN PROJECT INC — $88,534 over 2y, 12% of budgetRURAL EMERGENCYTRAUMA INSTITUTE INC — $75,147 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetJEFFERSON COUNTY ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE — $65,000 over 2y, 57% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES CORPORATION — $60,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAIM WOMEN'S CENTER — $59,967 over 2y, 14% of budgetALIVE INC — $40,962 over 1y, 7.5% of budgetJEFFERSON COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY — $27,322 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetUNITED WAY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY — $26,000 over 3y, 5.6% of budgetGROW OHIO VALLEY INC — $25,434 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetRICHMOND VOLUNTEER FIRE & RESCUE CO INC — $25,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetEASTER SEAL REHABILITATION CENTER INC — $24,926 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetCommunity Bread Basket Inc — $20,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetOHIO PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION — $15,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetTHE FISH INC — $10,000 over 1y, 27% of budget
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 VALLEY HOSPICE INC
  • Who funds OHIO VALLEY HEALTH CENTER
  • Who funds FRANCISCAN UNIVERSITY OF STEUBENVILLE
  • Who funds AUGUSTA LEVY LEARNING CENTER INC
  • Who funds Ohio Valley Youth Network
  • Who funds URBAN MISSION MINISTRIES INC
  • Who funds CHANGE INC
  • Who funds OLD FORT STEUBEN PROJECT INC
  • Who funds RURAL EMERGENCYTRAUMA INSTITUTE INC
  • Who funds FARMacyWV
  • Who funds JEFFERSON COUNTY ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE
  • Who funds CATHOLIC CHARITIES CORPORATION
  • Who funds AIM WOMEN'S CENTER
  • Who funds THE SOUP KITCHEN OF GREATER WHEELING INC
  • Who funds ALIVE 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.

Community Foundation for the Ohio Valley IncWV30.3× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for the Ohio Valley Inc · John C Williams Charitable Tr 8024 · Charles M Pugliese and Thelma M Pugliese Charitable Foundation · Esther N Simmons Charitable Trust · Steel Valley Charities · Hancock County Savings Charitable Foundation · Robert H Reakirt Fdn Equities · American Electric Power Foundation · Starvaggi Charities Inc · Albert Schenk III & Kathleen H Schenk Charitable Trust · The Wm M & a Cafaro Family Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Mary Jane Brooks Charitable Trust 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%your share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    10report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Mary Jane Brooks Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to Mary Jane Brooks Charitable Trust 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 67 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

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

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph