· Private foundation
Nancy Ruth Fund
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 FY2022–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k28 grants · $34k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Audubon Texas | $30,000 |
| Heifer International | $5,000 |
| Audubon Foundation Of Texas | $5,000 |
| EarthShare Texas | $3,000 |
| The Climate Foundation | $2,500 |
| US Climate Action Network | $2,500 |
| Environmental Defence Fund | $2,500 |
| UNICEF | $2,000 |
| Habitat for Humanity | $1,000 |
| Mercy Ships | $1,000 |
| Planned Parenthod of North Texas | $1,000 |
| Doctors Without Borders | $1,000 |
| Blackland Prairie Raptor Center | $960 |
| FINCA | $800 |
| Children Incorporated | $600 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY22–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 67% of your 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.
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 +16% since the first grant, against +11% for the ones you funded once.
30 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 6 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, 40% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k 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
- NTNORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK3× · 2022–2024 · $30k · revenue +28%
- AFAudubon Foundation of Texas4× · 2022–2025 · $26k · revenue +8% · 36% of their budget
UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF2× · 2024–2025 · $4k · revenue +16%
Funded once
DIRECT RELIEFone grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +8%- CPCASCADE PUBLIC MEDIAgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +27%
- IEIn-Sync Exotics Wildlife Rescueone grant, 2022 · $5k
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.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.
Grist is an independent, non profit media organization dedicated to reporting on climate change.
Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is March of Dimes Inc and the most unlike its peers is Reading Is Fundamental 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 43 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% 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.
34 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. 34 of the 61 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 NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds Audubon Foundation of Texas ↗
- Who funds Environmental Fund For Texas Inc ↗
- Who funds NOVA UKRAINE ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds CASCADE PUBLIC MEDIA ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds Mercy Ships International ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds 350ORG ↗
- Who funds FINCA INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds Climate Foundation ↗
- Who funds US CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds United States Association for UNHCR ↗
- Who funds SMILE TRAIN INC ↗
- Who funds WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS INC ↗
- Who funds MDRC ↗
- Who funds READING IS FUNDAMENTAL INC ↗
- Who funds Orphan Outreach ↗
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: Seattle Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Nancy Ruth Fund 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Nancy Ruth Fund?
Find your warmest path to Nancy Ruth Fund 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.