Skip to content
Robert J Truitt Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Robert J Truitt Charitable Foundation

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.

$20k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Human Services$80kPublic Safety & Disaster$30kFood & Nutrition$29kHealth$6kEducation$2kHousing & Shelter$2k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$2,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$120k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING$10,000
AGAPE COMMUNITY OUTREACH$5,000
WARREN COUNTY PATHFINDERS$2,000
TURNING POINT ADVOCACY SERVICES$1,500
SHINE PROJECT FOUNDATION$1,000
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 (FY17–25, $82k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $13k → 8%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $12k → 8%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $10k → 8%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $8k → 8%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $8k → 8%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $7k → 8%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $7k → 8%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $6k → 8%AGAPE COMMUNITY OUTREACH: $5k → 8%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $4k → 8%WARREN COUNTY PATHFINDERS: $2k → 8%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.

71%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$106k · 4 repeat orgs$42k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +79% since the first grant, against +3% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
6

Total granted

$106k
$33k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+79%
+3%

Still filing today

75%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 51% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthFood & NutritionEducationOther
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

  • WC
    WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING
    9× · 2017–2025 · $75k · revenue +43%
  • BB
    BROTHER BENNO FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2019–2022 · $28k · revenue +79%
  • MG
    MEALS-ON-WHEELS GREATER SAN DIEGO INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $2k · revenue +82%

Funded once

  • WP
    WARRENTON PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS COMMUNITY OUTR
    one grant, 2021 · $30k
  • AE
    ARISE EQUINE THERAPY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2024 · $1k · revenue +3%
  • AT
    A TOUCH OF HOPE
    one grant, 2024 · $1k
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
Warren Senior Center

Community senior centerprovide meals to senior citizens & homebound citizens

Human Services
2
Meals On Wheels of the Monterey Peninsula Inc

To empower seniors, disabled adults, veterans, and other under served populations to remain independent by nourishing their bodies, minds, and spirits, and drive out hunger and isolation in our region.

Food & Nutrition
3
Kansas Recovery Network
Health
4
Meals On Wheels Diablo Region

To enhance the lives of older adults by delivering healthy meals and providing an array of supportive services that empower seniors to live independently, safely, and with dignity.

Human Services
5
Warren County Delivery Meals Inc

Provide meals for the needy

Food & Nutrition
6
Special Delivery San Diego

To alleviate hunger and malnourishment in medically homebound and people living with AIDS, cancer and other critical illnesses.

Education
7
Warren-Washington Association for Mental Health Inc

To encourage and assist individuals in discovering pathways to their optimal mental health and wellness, while supporting hope and awareness of well-being in our community.

Human Services
8
Lawrence Meals On Wheels Inc

Lawrence meals on wheels' mission has always been to provide food service for the aged, convalescent and/or disabled residing in lawrence, kansas, regardless of race, color or creed, in order to remain independent in their own homes as…

Food & Nutrition
9
Seniorage Area Agency On Aging

A federally designated Area Agency on Aging whose mission is to bring independence enhancing supportive services to the 60+ population and their caregivers in our 17 county-wide service area.

Human Services
10
Meals On Wheels-Santa Maria Valley Inc

Deliver meals and provide informal health and welfare visits to disabled and elderly clients in the Santa Maria Valley.

—
11
Southwest Kansas Area Agency on Aging Inc

To serve and enhance the lives of older people and their families in Southwest Kansas.

—
12
Central Missouri Area Agency On Aging

Aging Best's mission is to help people be as independent as possible as they navigate through life by delivering the best support, services, and programs.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Meals-On-Wheels Greater San Diego Inc; the most unlike its peers is American Heart Association 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

11 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. 11 of the 14 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $75,000 · Human ServicesWARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGINGAGAPE Community Outreach: $5,000 · Human ServicesAGAPE Community Outreach+1 more: $2,000 · Human ServicesWARRENTON PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS COMMUNITY OUTR: $30,000 · OtherWARRENTON PROFESSIONAL FI…Bread of Life Rescue Mission: $1,500 · Other+2 more: $1,200 · OtherBROTHER BENNO FOUNDATION INC: $27,850 · Food & NutritionBROTHER BENNO FOUNDATI…MEALS-ON-WHEELS GREATER SAN DIEGO INC: $1,500 · Food & NutritionTurning Point Advocacy Services: $1,500 · HealthARISE EQUINE THERAPY FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Health+1 more: $50 · HealthShine Project Foundation: $1,000 · EducationWISE FOUNDATION: $500 · Education
Human Services$82,000Other$32,700Food & Nutrition$29,350Health$2,550Education$1,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $75,000 over 9y, 7.1% of budgetBROTHER BENNO FOUNDATION INC: $27,850 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetAGAPE Community Outreach: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWARREN COUNTY PATHFINDERS: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTurning Point Advocacy Services: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMEALS-ON-WHEELS GREATER SAN DIEGO INC: $1,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetARISE EQUINE THERAPY FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetShine Project Foundation: $1,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $50 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.

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.

Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO4.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Robert J Truitt Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Robert J Truitt Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%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
    0get no government money at all
    6report 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.

    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 14 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 Robert J Truitt’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