Skip to content
Osgood Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Osgood Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$60k
Granted FY2024still arriving
16
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Recreation & Sports$42kHealth$38kPhilanthropy$36kEducation$29kHousing & Shelter$16kPublic Benefit$11kCommunity Improvement$7kEnvironment$6kOther$0
02FY2024 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k14 grants · $40k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
$2,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$4k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MARY RUTAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$10,000
BRIDGES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP$10,000
DARKE COUNTY FOUNDATION$8,333
THE MED FOUNDATION$8,000
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SHELBY COUNTY$5,000
HERITAGE PARK$5,000
CELINA-MERCER COUNTY COMBINED SERVICES APPEAL INC$2,500
LAKE LORAMIE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION$2,500
LOGAN COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION$1,650
FORT LORAMIE EDUCATION FOUNDATION$1,500
MERCER COUNTY CIVIC FOUNDATION$1,500
DAYTON CHILDRENS HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$1,053
FORT LORAMIE SCHOOLS$1,000
WAYNE HOSPITAL COMPANY$1,000
RIGHT TO LIFE OF SHELBY COUNTY$500
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 (FY23–24, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SENIOR CENTER OF SIDNEY SHELBY COUNTY: $1k → 9%NEW CHOICES INC: $500 → 9%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.

31%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$51k · 7 repeat orgs$114k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +25% since the first grant, against +18% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
38

Total granted

$51k
$91k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+25%
+18%

Still filing today

29%
61%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $23k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
HealthCommunity ImprovementRecreation & SportsEducationHousing & ShelterFood & NutritionOther
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

  • MR
    MARY RUTAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $20k
  • TM
    THE MED FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $11k
  • FL
    FORT LORAMIE EDUCATION FOUNDATION
    4× · 2021–2024 · $6k

Funded once

  • M
    MCDO
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
  • OR
    OSGOOD RECREATION ASSOCAITION
    one grant, 2023 · $8k
  • ML
    MARION LOCAL FLYERS ATHLETICgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue +111%
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
Ohio County & Independent Agri Societies

To support local county fair

—
2
Shelby County Fair Association

Conduct the annual county fair

Recreation & Sports
3
Darke County Visitors Bureau Inc

Organize and promote tourism.

—
4
Mercer County Fairgrounds Inc

To support local county fair

Recreation & Sports
5
Darke County Historical Society

Operation of museum

—
6
Shelby County Ambulance Commission

Ambulance commission

—
7
Ohio County & Independent Fairs Highland County

The goal is to promote all types of agriculture in the county and surrounding areas during the year and finalizing with the seven day fair.

Food & Nutrition
8
Graysville & Community Vol Fire Dept

Providing rural fire protection services for the village of Graysville, OH and surrounding community

—
9
Darke County Center for the Arts Inc

Community arts council

Arts & Culture
10
Dekalb County Fair Association Inc

Conduct annual county fair

Recreation & Sports
11
Ohio County Youth Development Inc

To conduct the ohio county 4-h fair and auction.

Youth Development
12
Sibley County Agricultural Associat

Venue for agricultural displays

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Shelby County Agricultural Society; the most unlike its peers is Kinder Korner Preschool 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

35 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 35 of the 56 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
35/35
Grantees still filing
18/35
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DARKE COUNTY FOUNDATION: $25,000 · OtherDARKE COUNTY FOUNDATIONMARY RUTAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $20,000 · OtherMARY RUTAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONTHE MED FOUNDATION: $10,500 · OtherTHE MED FOUNDATIONMCDO: $10,000 · OtherMCDOOSGOOD RECREATION ASSOCAITION: $8,000 · OtherTHE VILLAGE OF CHICKASAW: $6,250 · OtherFORT LORAMIE EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $6,000 · OtherMERCER COUNTY CIVIC FOUNDATION: $5,500 · Other+29 more: $61,741 · Other+29 moreMARION LOCAL FLYERS ATHLETIC: $7,507 · EducationMARION COMMUNITY SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION INC: $4,000 · EducationKINDER KORNER PRESCHOOL INC: $3,285 · EducationBRIDGES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: $10,000 · Housing & ShelterMERCY MISSION HOUSE: $3,000 · Housing & ShelterCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SHELBY COUNTY: $7,500 · PhilanthropyNEW BREMEN FOUNDATION INC: $500 · PhilanthropyCHICKASAW COMMUNITY PARK ASSOCIATIO: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsLOGAN COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOC: $1,000 · Recreation & Sports+1 more: $200 · Recreation & SportsLAKE LORAMIE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIO: $2,500 · Community ImprovementTHE MINSTER CIVIC ASSOCIATION: $1,660 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION OF DARKE COUNTY: $500 · Community ImprovementDAYTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $1,053 · HealthWayne Hospital Company: $1,000 · HealthEAGLES' WINGS STABLE INC: $1,000 · HealthCANCER ASSOCIATION OF DARKE COUNTY: $300 · HealthCANCER ASSOCIATION OF MERCER COUNTY: $250 · HealthCHILDREN'S HEMIPLEGIA AND STROKE ASSOCIATION: $250 · Health
Other$152,991Education$14,792Housing & Shelter$13,000Philanthropy$8,000Recreation & Sports$6,200Community Improvement$4,660Health$3,853

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDARKE COUNTY FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetBRIDGES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMARION LOCAL FLYERS ATHLETIC: $7,507 over 1y, 7.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SHELBY COUNTY: $7,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMERCER COUNTY CIVIC FOUNDATION: $5,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCHICKASAW COMMUNITY PARK ASSOCIATIO: $5,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetMARION COMMUNITY SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION INC: $4,000 over 3y, 3.4% of budgetKINDER KORNER PRESCHOOL INC: $3,285 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetTHE EDISON FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetMERCY MISSION HOUSE: $3,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetLAKEVIEW FIREMANS CLUB: $2,500 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetSAFY FOUNDATION INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCELINA-MERCER COUNTY COMBINED SERVICES APPEAL INC: $2,500 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetMAV YOUTH MENTORING INC: $2,500 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetCENTER FOR NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT: $2,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetLAKE LORAMIE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIO: $2,500 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTHE MINSTER CIVIC ASSOCIATION: $1,660 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetRIGHT TO LIFE OF SHELBY COUNTYINC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetVERSAILLES COMMUNITY SCHOLARSHIP FUND INC: $1,500 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetDAYTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $1,053 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWayne Hospital Company: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHELBY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDARKE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSENIOR CENTER OF SIDNEY-SHELBY COUNTY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetEAGLES' WINGS STABLE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetAUGLAIZE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIET: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJTD HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLOGAN COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNEW CHOICES INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION OF DARKE COUNTY: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNEW BREMEN FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCANCER ASSOCIATION OF DARKE COUNTY: $300 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCANCER ASSOCIATION OF MERCER COUNTY: $250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHILDREN'S HEMIPLEGIA AND STROKE ASSOCIATION: $250 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFORT LORAMIE BOOSTER CLUB INC: $200 over 1y, 0.5% 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.

Community Foundation …Dayton Foundation Dep…The Troy FoundationPark National Corpora…Raymond James Charita…The Blackbaud Giving …Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation of Shelby CountyOH26.1× affinity10 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Shelby County · Dayton Foundation Depository · The Troy Foundation · Park National Corporation Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · The Blackbaud Giving 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 Osgood Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Osgood Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 Osgood Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Osgood 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.

    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 56 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Osgood’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