Skip to content

· Private foundation

Repairing the Breach Ministries Inc

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.

$30k
Granted FY2025still arriving
18
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What it funds
0178% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Religion$116kHuman Services$94kInternational$30kHealth$4kArts & Culture$3kPublic Safety & Disaster$700Youth Development$500Employment$500Other$0
02FY2025 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$16k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Eric and Mendy Anderson$7,600
Individual grant recipient$4,500
Individual grant recipient$4,000
Charity Swint$2,200
Individual grant recipient$2,000
Individual grant recipient$1,900
Individual grant recipient$1,500
Individual grant recipient$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
Compassion Church$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
Individual grant recipient$500
Individual grant recipient$500
Mission 615$500
Otis and Judy Roberts$300
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 (FY19–25, $14k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%Mission 615: $13k → 14%Mission 615: $500 → 14%Mission 615: $500 → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
WI
MI
OR
IN
NJ
CA
CO
KY
VA
TN
NC
SC
GA
TX
FL
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 26% of Repairing the Breach Ministries Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 48% of the giving stays in TN; by stated purpose, 33%.

Repairing the Breach Ministries Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 7.0% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$228k · 16 repeat orgs$40k to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
47

Total granted

$228k
$27k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-2%
+18%

Still filing today

13%
9%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 59% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionEducationHuman ServicesInternationalOther
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

  • EA
    Eric and Mendy Anderson
    6× · 2020–2025 · $83k
  • SA
    South African Evangelistic Missions
    3× · 2019–2021 · $42k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    7× · 2019–2025 · $22k

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $2k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $2k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
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
05the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 75 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
3/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Eric and Mendy Anderson: $82,850 · OtherEric and Mendy AndersonSouth African Evangelistic Missions: $41,872 · OtherSouth African Evangelistic MissionsIndividual grant recipient: $21,850 · OtherIndividual grant recipientRICK CLENDENEN MINISTRIES INC: $18,000 · OtherRICK CLENDENEN MINISTRIES INCFaith India Ministries Orphanage: $12,223 · Other+64 more: $60,357 · Other+64 moreELEOS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES INC: $14,827 · InternationalMission 615 Inc: $13,941 · Human ServicesCHURCH LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL: $1,000 · EducationEVERYDAY REVIVALISTS INC: $500 · EducationOASIS WORLD MINISTRIES INC: $250 · ReligionELIJAH LIST MINISTRIES INC: $100 · Religion
Other$237,152International$14,827Human Services$13,941Education$1,500Religion$350

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

25%50%75%100%$100kgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetELEOS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES INC: $14,827 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetMission 615 Inc: $13,941 over 2y, 6.3% of budgetVICTORIOUS FAITH MINISTRIES: $1,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetCHURCH LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetEVERYDAY REVIVALISTS INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 ELEOS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES INC ↗
  • Who funds Mission 615 Inc ↗
  • Who funds VICTORIOUS FAITH MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds CHURCH LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA7.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc

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 Repairing the Breach Ministries Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Repairing the Breach Ministries Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Repairing the Breach Ministries Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Repairing the Breach Ministries Inc 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 75 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 Repairing the Breach Ministries’ filings →

    More from the funding graph