Skip to content

· 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 it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$675
Median grant
1
States reached
$179k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FOOD DEPOT$758
ST ELIZABETH SHELTER$675
REUNITY RESOURCES$675
SOLACE SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES$675
KITCHEN ANGELS$675
CANCER FOUNDATION FOR NEW MEXICO$538
CANCER FOUNDATION FOR NEW MEXICO$225
VILLA THERESE FREE CLINIC$225
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 (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 its 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
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.

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

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +2% since the first grant, against -9% for those 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
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

  • 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%
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
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Feeding Santa Fe Inc; 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 grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

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

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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
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.

  • 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 ↗

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.

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

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 Paul F Rutledge Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Paul F Rutledge Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's 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, 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.

    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 12 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Paul F Rutledge’s filings →

    More from the funding graph