Skip to content

· Private foundation

Rhoades Sanford Foundation 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.

$581k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$183k
Largest
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$1.8MPhilanthropy$619kCommunity Improvement$609kHealth$320kYouth Development$268kHuman Services$60kRecreation & Sports$59kHousing & Shelter$35kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $51k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $519k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE FOX VALLEY$182,500
Individual grant recipient$100,000
FOX VALLEY TECHNICAL COLLEGE$75,000
CITY OF NEENAH PARK & REC DEPT$59,000
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE FOX VAL$52,000
NORTHEAST WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLE$50,000
COLLEGE READY$41,200
WAUPACA CHRISTIAN ACADEMY$10,000
WAUPACA HIGH SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIP FOU$5,000
KAUKAUNA HIGH SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIP$5,000
NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE$1,500
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 (FY23–25, $203k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 10% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%YOUTH GO INC: $20k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE FOX VALLEY: $183k → 7%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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.1M · 21 repeat orgs$628k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +84% since the first grant, against +35% for those funded once.

21 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
14

Total granted

$3.1M
$387k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+84%
+35%

Still filing today

24%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $242k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentEducationEnvironmentHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • CI
    COLLEGEREADY INC
    7× · 2017–2025 · $649k · revenue +304%
  • FN
    FUTURE NEENAH INC
    5× · 2017–2023 · $197k · revenue +84%
  • CH
    CATALPA HEALTH INC
    2× · 2017–2023 · $80k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • TF
    THEDACARE FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $150k
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INC
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +1%
  • GS
    GREATER SHAWANO AREA RECOVER INITIA
    one grant, 2023 · $40k
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
Girls Incorporated of Sioux City

Inspiring all girls to be strong, smart, and bold.

Youth Development
2
Common Good Iowa

Common good iowa engages iowans to create and advocate for research-based public policy that makes life better and more equitable for all who make iowa home.

—
3
Boys and Girls Clubs of Indianapolis Inc

Bgci believes that every young person deserves to live a life filled with hope and opportunity. because we care about our young people, we provide a safe, educational, and positive atmosphere where they can prosper and reach their full…

—
4
West Bend Community Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
5
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Industry

The minnesota chamber of commerce proactively leads the business community statewide to: advance pro-business, responsible minnesota public policy that creates jobs and grows the econony; provde member services to address evolving business…

—
6
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Sioux Empire

To nurture, educate and enrich children and youth for life-long success.

Human Services
7
Community Foundation of the Fox River Valley

To provide effective and rewarding ways for donors to fulfill their philanthropic objectives by administering charitable funds that distribute grants and scholarships to benefit the citizens of kane and kendall counties of illinois…

Philanthropy
8
Door County Land Trust Inc

The door county land trust is a local, non-governmental non-profit organization whose mission is to preserve door county's exceptional lands and waters forever.

Environment
9
Kenosha Community Foundation

We lead, serve and collaborate with donors to create enduring philanthropy.

Philanthropy
10
Chamber of Commerce - Greater Beloit

Chamber of commerce to support, ancourage and engage in activities that make the greater Beloit area a better place to live and do business.

Education
11
St Cloud Downtown Alliance Foundation

Enhancing and strengthening our community and our regional core.

—
12
Wisconsin Policy Forum Inc

We conduct impartial public policy research and analysis to drive informed debate and effective decision-making in the state of wisconsin.

Public Benefit
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Greater Green Bay Community Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Agape Help Center 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

15 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. 15 of the 40 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
12/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FOX VALLEY TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $575,000 · OtherFOX VALLEY TECHNICAL COLLEGEIndividual grant recipient: $500,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNORTHEAST WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLE: $260,000 · OtherNORTHEAST WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEUS VENTURES FOUNDATION: $200,000 · OtherUS VENTURES FOUNDATIONCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE FOX VAL: $178,800 · OtherCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE FOX VALTHEDACARE FOUNDATION: $150,000 · OtherTHEDACARE FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $100,000 · Other+22 more: $554,500 · Other+22 moreCOLLEGEREADY INC: $649,450 · EducationCOLLEGEREADY INCCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR THE FOX VALLEY REGION INC: $322,300 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY F…GREATER GREEN BAY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · PhilanthropyGREATER GRE…DOOR COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $40,000 · PhilanthropyDOOR COUNTY…BOYS & GIRLS CLUB FOX VALLEY INC: $182,500 · Human ServicesYOUTH GO INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesFUTURE NEENAH INC: $197,000 · EnvironmentCATALPA HEALTH INC: $80,000 · Health+1 more: $2,500 · HealthBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INC: $50,000 · Youth Development+1 more: $400 · Youth Development
Other$2,518,300Education$649,450Philanthropy$412,300Human Services$202,500Environment$197,000Health$82,500Youth Development$50,400

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOLLEGEREADY INC: $649,450 over 7y, 24% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR THE FOX VALLEY REGION INC: $322,300 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetFUTURE NEENAH INC: $197,000 over 5y, 9.8% of budgetCATALPA HEALTH INC: $80,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetGREATER GREEN BAY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetDOOR COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $40,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetFOUNDATIONS FOR LIVING INC: $35,000 over 3y, 4.0% of budgetYOUTH GO INC: $20,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetNATIONAL RAILROAD MUSEUM INC: $13,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetNEENAH HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $12,000 over 1y, 8.9% of budgetAgape Help Center Inc: $5,000 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.

  • Who funds COLLEGEREADY INC ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR THE FOX VALLEY REGION INC ↗
  • Who funds FUTURE NEENAH INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB FOX VALLEY INC ↗
  • Who funds CATALPA HEALTH INC ↗
  • Who funds GREATER GREEN BAY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INC ↗
  • Who funds DOOR COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FOUNDATIONS FOR LIVING INC ↗
  • Who funds YOUTH GO INC ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL RAILROAD MUSEUM INC ↗
  • Who funds NEENAH HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds Agape Help Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds SYSTEMIC JIA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BADGER BOYS STATE INCORPORATED ↗

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.

Green Bay Packers FoundationWI25.2× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Green Bay Packers Foundation · J J Keller Foundation Inc · Community Foundation for the Fox Valley Region Inc · US Ventureschmidt Family Foundation · Elizabeth B and Philip J Hendrickson Foundation Ltd · The Boldt Family Fund Inc · George Kress Foundation Inc · Oshkosh Area Community Foundation Corporation · Greater Green Bay Community Foundation Inc · Otto Bremer Trust · Bernard E and Alyce G Dahlin Foundation Inc · Charles Family Foundation 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 Rhoades Sanford Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rhoades Sanford Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%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
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Rhoades Sanford Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Rhoades Sanford Foundation 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 40 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 Rhoades Sanford’s filings →

    More from the funding graph