Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Paul F Rutledge 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.

$4k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$758
Largest
01What you fund
0192% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20202025.

Food & Nutrition$25kHousing & Shelter$9kHuman Services$9kHealth$8kRecreation & Sports$3kEnvironment$3kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$675
Median grant
1
States reached
$179k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FOOD DEPOT$758
SOLACE SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES$675
ST ELIZABETH SHELTER$675
KITCHEN ANGELS$675
REUNITY RESOURCES$675
CANCER FOUNDATION FOR NEW MEXICO$538
CANCER FOUNDATION FOR NEW MEXICO$225
VILLA THERESE FREE CLINIC$225
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 (FY20–25, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%FOOD DEPOT: $3k → 12%FOOD DEPOT: $2k → 12%Food Depot: $2k → 12%FOOD DEPOT: $1k → 12%FOOD DEPOT: $963 → 12%FOOD DEPOT: $758 → 12%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$57k · 11 repeat orgs$287 to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +2% since the first grant, against -9% for the ones you funded once.

11 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
1

Total granted

$57k
$287

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+2%
-9%

Still filing today

55%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterHealthEnvironmentOther

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

  • THE FOOD DEPOT
    6× · 2020–2025 · $10k · revenue +17%
  • SS
    SOLACE SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES
    6× · 2020–2025 · $9k · revenue +46%
  • SE
    SAINT ELIZABETH SHELTER CORPORATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $9k · revenue +42%

Funded once

  • SO
    SPECIAL OLYMPICS NEW MEXICO INC
    one grant, 2024 · $287 · revenue -9%

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
Food Bank of Eastern New Mexico

The organization solicits, collects and purchases food and grocery items for distribution to other nonprofit organizations such as churches, clubs and agencies with programs to feed the ill, infants/children, elderly and needy. the…

Food & Nutrition
2
Roadrunner Food Bank Inc

To feed every hungry person today, to seed partnerships that build self- sufficiency for tomorrow, and lead to achieve our vision of permanently ending hunger in new mexico.

Food & Nutrition
3
El Corazon De Columbus

Our mission is to bridge the gap of hunger and food insecurity for the residents of Southern Luna County, New Mexico with a specific focus on the Columbus, New Mexico area. Serving an area of 880 square miles, we strive to create a…

Food & Nutrition
4
Community Power New Mexico
Community Improvement
5
Urban Angels Co Scott Lutwak

Urban angels is designed to nourish and provide food for the homeless and hungry of san dieo, ca. urban angels provides feeding services every wednesday in collboration with the salvation army and is the primary food provider for residents…

6
St Mary's Food Bank Alliance

Bridging the gap for arizona communities with nourishment for today and hope for tomorrow.

Food & Nutrition
7
St Felix Pantry Inc

To empower the needy toward economic stability by giving individuals and families an extra hand during difficult times. st. felix pantry creates hope for the future by upbuilding dignity through compassion for the needy by distributing…

8
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley

To realize our vision of a hunger free community we will provide more food, healthy food and better access to food. we will leverage our own resources and also work with partners in the community.

Food & Nutrition
9
Cooking With Kids Inc

Cooking with kids educates and empowers children and families to make healthy food choices through hands-on nutrition education with fresh, affordable foods.

Youth Development
10
Feed the Hungry San Miguel Inc

Fthsm is a non-governmental organization that raises funds for feed the hungry, a.c. a mexican not-for-profit corporation which provides free meals for the poor of san miguel de allende, gto, mexico.

Food & Nutrition
11
Impact of Southern Arizona

Impact of southern arizona is a private non-profit volunteer based organization which empowers southern arizonans with the resources required to pursue a stabilized and enhanced quality of life.

Community Improvement
12
Food Bank Coalition of San Luis Obispo County

Procurement and distribution of food to agencies serving the needy.

Food & Nutrition

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Feeding Santa Fe Inc and the most unlike its peers is Solace Sexual Assault Services. 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

8 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. 8 of the 12 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

SOLACE SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES — $8,664 · OtherSOLACE SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICESKITCHEN ANGELS INC — $8,664 · OtherKITCHEN ANGELS INCFEEDING SANTA FE INC — $4,029 · OtherFEEDING SANTA FE INCSPECIAL OLYMPICS — $2,376 · OtherSPECIAL OLYMPICSIndividual grant recipient — $2,376 · OtherIndividual grant recipientFEEDING SANTA FE INCFOOD PANTRY — $2,150 · OtherFEEDING SANTA FE INCFOOD PANTRY+2 more — $799 · OtherTHE FOOD DEPOT — $9,718 · Human ServicesTHE FOOD DEPOTSAINT ELIZABETH SHELTER CORPORATION — $8,664 · Housing & ShelterSAINT ELIZABETH S…CANCER FOUNDATION FOR NEW MEXICO — $7,126 · HealthCANCER FOUNDAT…REUNITY RESOURCES — $2,612 · Environment
Other$29,058Human Services$9,718Housing & Shelter$8,664Health$7,126Environment$2,612

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTHE FOOD DEPOT — $9,718 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetSOLACE SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES — $8,664 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetKITCHEN ANGELS INC — $8,664 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSAINT ELIZABETH SHELTER CORPORATION — $8,664 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetCANCER FOUNDATION FOR NEW MEXICO — $7,126 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetFEEDING SANTA FE INC — $4,029 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetREUNITY RESOURCES — $2,612 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS NEW MEXICO INC — $287 over 1y, 0.0% 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 THE FOOD DEPOT
  • Who funds SOLACE SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES
  • Who funds KITCHEN ANGELS INC
  • Who funds SAINT ELIZABETH SHELTER CORPORATION
  • Who funds CANCER FOUNDATION FOR NEW MEXICO
  • Who funds FEEDING SANTA FE INC
  • Who funds REUNITY RESOURCES
  • Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS NEW MEXICO 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.

Santa Fe Community FoundationNM19.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Santa Fe Community Foundation · Rotary Club of Santa Fe Foundation Inc · St Vincent Hospital · The Abeles Foundation · Nancy Ann Mellen Foundation · Lineberry Foundation · Anchorum St Vincent · The Celia Lipton Farris and Victor W Farris Foundation · The Frost Foundation · Enterprise Bank & Trust Foundation · Pnm Tnmp Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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 Paul F Rutledge 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%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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.

    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 12 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