Skip to content
Rose Ladies Aid Society at a glance

· Private foundation

Rose Ladies Aid Society

Its FY2026 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$63k
Granted FY2026still arriving
22
Grants FY2026still arriving
1
States reached
$11k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Human Services$147kHealth$55kFood & Nutrition$48kReligion$18kYouth Development$17kEducation$14kHousing & Shelter$9kCrime & Legal$2kOther$0
02FY2026 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2026

  • Under $10k21 grants · $53k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
$1,250
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
35 needy households$10,864
Manna From Seven$8,500
14th & Chestnut Community Center$8,100
Catholic Charities$7,100
Council on Domestic Abuse Inc$3,600
Mental Health America$3,600
VNA & Hospice of the Wabash Valley$3,600
Happiness Bag$3,600
Providence Food Pantry$2,800
Salvation Army$2,500
Individual grant recipient$1,250
Terre Haute Boys and Girls Club$1,000
Camp Navigate$1,000
Chances and Services for Youth$1,000
Tribune Star Basket Fund$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 (FY21–26, $101k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 19%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 19%Happiness Bag: $4k → 19%Happiness Bag: $4k → 19%Happiness Bag: $4k → 19%Happiness Bag: $4k → 19%Happiness Bag: $4k → 19%Happiness Bag: $4k → 19%Lighthouse Mission Inc: $2k → 19%Camp Navigate: $2k → 19%Camp Navigate: $2k → 19%Lighthouse Mission Inc: $2k → 19%Camp Navigate: $625 → 19%Camp Navigate: $1k → 19%Camp Navigate: $1k → 19%Camp Navigate: $1k → 19%14th & Chestnut Community Center: $8k → 19%14th & Chestnut Community Center: $8k → 19%14th & Chestnut Community Center: $8k → 19%14th & Chestnut Community Center: $8k → 19%14th & Chestnut Community Center: $7k → 19%14th & Chestnut Community Center: $7k → 19%Council on Domestic Abuse Inc: $4k → 19%Council on Domestic Abuse Inc: $4k → 19%Council on Domestic Abuse Inc: $4k → 19%Council on Domestic Abuse Inc: $4k → 19%Council on Domestic Abuse Inc: $4k → 19%Council on Domestic Abuse Inc: $4k → 19%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$348k · 28 repeat orgs$33k to everyone else

28 repeat relationships: 19 still active in FY2026, 9 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

28
5

Total granted

$348k
$19k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
+37%

Still filing today

43%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $14k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25’26
Human ServicesYouth DevelopmentFood & NutritionArts & CultureHealthHousing & 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

  • MF
    MANNA FROM SEVEN INC
    6× · 2021–2026 · $52k · revenue +14%
  • 1C
    14th & Chestnut Community Center
    6× · 2021–2026 · $47k · revenue +30%
  • CO
    COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC ABUSE INC
    6× · 2021–2026 · $22k · revenue +49%

Funded once

  • 3N
    36 needy households
    one grant, 2024 · $11k
  • 2N
    20 needy households
    one grant, 2025 · $8k
  • RG
    Rio Grande Elementary School
    one grant, 2024 · $137
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
Vanderburgh County Casa Inc
Civil Rights
2
Childrens Advocacy Center - Hope House

To provide a child-oriented, multidisciplinary forensice interview enviroment facility and counseling center for victims of abuse and their families.

Civil Rights
3
Hoosier Families Inc

Hoosier Families is a non-profit organization that provides Community Based programs for Indiana children and families. Hoosier Families is committed to utilizing evidence-based practices to strengthen, rebuild and reunite the individuals…

Human Services
4
Casa Viva

To promote Christian child care and foster care networks in developing nations

International
5
Scioto County Habitat for Humanity

Seeking to put God's love into action,

—
6
House of Hope Midwest

The House of Hope is dedicated to serving individuals, families, and our community by providing a hand up into a hope-filled future.

Human Services
7
Casa of Williamson County Texas

CASA of Williamson County, TX exists to empower community volunteers to advocate for children who have experienced abuse or neglect to find loving, safe, and permanent homes.

Crime & Legal
8
Southwest Indiana Child Advocacy Center Coalition

To advocate for the rights and interests of children in Southwestern Indiana.

Youth Development
9
Heart of Iowa Habitat for Humanity

To provide low-cost housing to eligible families.

—
10
Cumberland County Habitat for Humanity

Seeking to put gods love into action, Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities, and hope.

—
11
Kids Place at Sequoyah Inc

Kids Place at Sequoyah, Inc. provides after-school care for an average of 110 children.

Education
12
Southeastern Indiana Voices for Children Inc

To act as Guardian Ad Litem Court Appointed Special Advocate for Children.

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Terre Haute Boys & Girls Club; the most unlike its peers is Next Step Foundation 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

13 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. 13 of the 36 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)
13/13
Grantees still filing
10/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Catholic Charities: $38,525 · OtherCatholic CharitiesVNA & Hospice of the Wabash Valley: $21,600 · OtherVNA & Hospice of the Wabash ValleyMental Health America: $21,600 · OtherMental Health AmericaSALVATION ARMY: $16,825 · OtherSALVATION ARMYIndividual grant recipient: $14,705 · OtherIndividual grant recipientVigo County Education Foundation Inc: $14,025 · OtherVigo County Education Foundation IncST PATRICK CATHOLIC CHURCH: $10,975 · Other35 needy households: $10,864 · Other36 needy households: $10,675 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $8,950 · Other20 needy households: $8,018 · Other+14 more: $37,812 · Other+14 more14th & Chestnut Community Center: $46,525 · Human Services14th & Chestnut Community Cen…COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC ABUSE INC: $21,600 · Human ServicesCOUNCIL ON DOMESTIC ABUSE INCHAPPINESS BAG PLAYERS INC: $21,600 · Human ServicesHAPPINESS BAG PLAYERS INCCamp Navigate Inc: $7,625 · Human ServicesCamp Navigate IncLIGHT HOUSE MISSION INC: $3,500 · Human ServicesMANNA FROM SEVEN INC: $51,725 · Food & NutritionMANNA FROM SEVE…Terre Haute Boys & Girls Club: $8,500 · Youth DevelopmentThe Hendricks County Child Advocacy Center Inc: $2,000 · Youth DevelopmentWabash Valley Habitat for Humanity: $2,500 · Housing & ShelterNext Step Foundation Inc: $1,000 · HealthSheldon Swope Art Museum Inc: $100 · Arts & Culture
Other$214,574Human Services$100,850Food & Nutrition$51,725Youth Development$10,500Housing & Shelter$2,500Health$1,000Arts & Culture$100

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMANNA FROM SEVEN INC: $51,725 over 6y, 7.6% of budget14th & Chestnut Community Center: $46,525 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetCOUNCIL ON DOMESTIC ABUSE INC: $21,600 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetHAPPINESS BAG PLAYERS INC: $21,600 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetVigo County Education Foundation Inc: $14,025 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetTerre Haute Boys & Girls Club: $8,500 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetCamp Navigate Inc: $7,625 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetLIGHT HOUSE MISSION INC: $3,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWabash Valley Habitat for Humanity: $2,500 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetThe Hendricks County Child Advocacy Center Inc: $2,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetNext Step Foundation Inc: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSheldon Swope Art Museum Inc: $100 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 MANNA FROM SEVEN INC ↗
  • Who funds 14th & Chestnut Community Center ↗
  • Who funds COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC ABUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds HAPPINESS BAG PLAYERS INC ↗
  • Who funds Vigo County Education Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds Terre Haute Boys & Girls Club ↗
  • Who funds Camp Navigate Inc ↗
  • Who funds LIGHT HOUSE MISSION INC ↗
  • Who funds Wabash Valley Habitat for Humanity ↗
  • Who funds The Hendricks County Child Advocacy Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds CHANCES AND SERVICES FOR YOUTH INC ↗
  • Who funds Next Step Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds Sheldon Swope Art Museum 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.

Frederick R Benson Tr…Wabash Valley Communi…Clara Fairbanks Found…Indiana Chemical Trus…United Way of the Wab…Max L Gibson & Jacque…The Hux Family Charit…The Weston Wabash Fou…Mary Smith Young TrustHulman & Company Foun…The George F and Mari…Gregory L Gibson Char…
Frederick R Benson TrustIN26.3× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Frederick R Benson Trust · Wabash Valley Community Foundation Inc · Clara Fairbanks Foundation Inc · Indiana Chemical Trust Tr Ua-Fdt 320006018 · United Way of the Wabash Valley Inc · Max L Gibson & Jacqueline Gibson Foundation · The Hux Family Charitable Trust · The Weston Wabash Foundation · Mary Smith Young Trust · Hulman & Company Foundation Inc · The George F and Marion D Johnson Charitable Trust · Gregory L Gibson Charitable 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 Rose Ladies Aid Society funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rose Ladies Aid Society. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 Rose Ladies Aid Society?

    Find your warmest path to Rose Ladies Aid Society 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 36 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rose Ladies Aid Society’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