Skip to content
Rudd Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Rudd Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$2k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$16kReligion$5kPhilanthropy$3kFood & Nutrition$2kHuman Services$1kHealth$1kAnimals$1kCivil Rights$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100
Median grant
2
States reached
$49k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
KENTUCKY RESOURCES COUNCIL$1,000
JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH CLUB$1,000
EARTHJUSTICE$100
LEGAL AID SOCIETY$100
BECKHAM BIRD CLUB$100
THE BERRY CENTER$50
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%EARTHJUSTICE: $750 → 10%EARTH JUSTICE: $250 → 10%THE BERRY CENTER: $100 → 16%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $100 → 16%OLD FRIENDS: $150 → 8%THE BERRY CENTER: $100 → 13%KY RESOURCES COUNCIL: $750 → 14%KENTUCKY EDUCATION TELEVISION: $170 → 15%DARE TO CARE: $100 → 15%B G COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $500 → 18%SIERRA CLUB: $250 → 10%EARTH JUSTICE: $250 → 10%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $100 → 16%OLD FRIENDS INC: $100 → 8%THE BERRY CENTER: $100 → 13%KET: $150 → 15%EARTHJUSTICE: $100 → 10%OLD FRIENDS THOROUGHBRED RETIREMENT: $100 → 8%BLUEGRASS LAND CONSERVANCY: $300 → 15%OLMSTED CONSERVANCY: $900 → 15%JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH CLUB: $1k → 15%JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH CLUB: $1k → 15%JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH CLUB: $1k → 15%JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAN CLUB: $1k → 15%JEWISH HERITAGE FUND: $1k → 15%JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH FUND: $500 → 15%ACLU OF KENTUCKY: $500 → 15%JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH FUND: $500 → 15%KY SCIENCE CENTER: $250 → 15%LOUISVILLE BALLET: $200 → 15%LEGAL AID SOCIETY: $150 → 15%RIVERFIELDS: $1k → 15%RIVER FIELDS: $500 → 15%RIVERFIELDS: $500 → 15%RIVERFIELDS: $250 → 15%BECKHAM BIRD CLUB: $141 → 15%FOOD LITERARY PROJECT: $250 → 15%IMPACT 100 LOUISVILLE: $1k → 15%JEWISH FEDERATION OF LOUISVILLE: $275 → 15%FOOD LITERACY PROJECT: $350 → 15%JEWISH FEDERATION OF LOUISVILLE: $275 → 15%FOOD LITERACY PROJECT: $250 → 15%BRIDGEHAVEN: $250 → 15%BRIDGEHAVEN: $250 → 15%LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $200 → 15%TREES LOUISVILLE: $150 → 15%BRIDGEHAVEN: $150 → 15%FOOD LITERACY PROJECT: $150 → 15%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.
$29k · 30 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +38% since the first grant, against +7% for those funded once.

30 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 24 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
19

Total granted

$29k
$6k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+7%

Still filing today

60%
37%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentAnimalsFood & NutritionArts & CultureHealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • KR
    KENTUCKY RESOURCES COUNCIL INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $9k · revenue +274%
  • EARTHJUSTICE
    4× · 2018–2024 · $1k · revenue +114%
  • TC
    THE CENTER FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $1k · revenue +11%

Funded once

  • IL
    IMPACT100 LOUISVILLE INC
    one grant, 2023 · $1k · revenue +7%
  • JH
    JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAN CLUB
    one grant, 2022 · $1k
  • JH
    JEWISH HERITAGE FUND
    one grant, 2020 · $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
The Ohio Environmental Council

To protect the environment and health of all ohio communities through legal and policy advocacy, decision-maker accountability, and civic engagement.

Environment
2
The Boone Conservancy Inc

Preservation and conservation of land in boone county, kentucky

Recreation & Sports
3
West Creek Conservancy

Our mission is to enrich the lives of all people in northeast ohio by conserving natural habitats, restoring the ecological value of our region's lands and waters, and expanding opportunities to connect people from all cultures to…

Environment
4
Heartlands Conservancy

The mission of heartlands conservancy is to empower and colaborate with the people of southern illinois to advance and protect the health of our distinctive communities and nationally significant natural and cultural resources.

Environment
5
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc

We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…

Environment
6
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
7
Western Reserve Land Conservancy

Land conservation and restoration for public benefit

Environment
8
Wild Landscapes Inc

Wild landscapes, inc. (wli) is dedicated to conserving large and connected landscapes globally significant to wildlife and crucial to local communities. our environmental conservation strategy is to empower communities, conservationists,…

Animals
9
Conservation Law Foundation Inc

Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…

Environment
10
Harpeth Conservancy

To restore and protect clean water and healthy ecosystems for rivers in tennessee by employing scientific expertise and collaborative relationships to develop, promote, and support broad community stewardship and action.

Environment
11
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
12
Woods and Waters Land Trust Inc

Wwlt's mission is to establish conservation easements in the lower kentucky river region for the myriad of benefits that result from effective land conservation and protection. wwlt seeks to meet these objectives by focusing on three main…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kentucky Heartwood Inc; the most unlike its peers is Old Friends 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

27 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. 27 of the 50 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/27
Grantees still filing
18/27
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH CLUB: $3,000 · OtherJEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH CLUBSIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION: $1,750 · OtherSIERRA CLUB FOUNDATIONJEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAN CLUB: $1,000 · OtherJEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAN CLUBJEWISH HERITAGE FUND: $1,000 · OtherJEWISH HERITAGE FUNDIndividual grant recipient: $960 · OtherIndividual grant recipientLIBRARY FOUNDATION: $700 · OtherACLU OF KENTUCKY: $600 · OtherBRIDGEHAVEN INC: $650 · Other+24 more: $5,810 · Other+24 moreKENTUCKY RESOURCES COUNCIL INC: $8,750 · EnvironmentKENTUCKY RESOURCES COUNCIL INCRIVER FIELDS INC: $2,250 · EnvironmentRIVER FIELDS INCEARTHJUSTICE: $1,350 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICE+5 more: $925 · Environment+5 moreIMPACT100 LOUISVILLE INC: $1,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH COMMUNITY OF LOUISVILLE INC: $550 · PhilanthropyTHE CENTER FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES INC: $1,200 · Human ServicesThe Food Literacy Project at Oxmoor Farm Inc: $750 · Food & NutritionDARE TO CARE INC: $450 · Food & NutritionOld Friends Inc: $550 · AnimalsKENTUCKY HUMANE SOCIETY - ANIMAL RESCUE: $300 · AnimalsBECKHAM BIRD CLUB INC: $241 · AnimalsNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $50 · AnimalsJEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH FUND INC: $1,000 · Religion
Other$15,470Environment$13,275Philanthropy$1,550Human Services$1,200Food & Nutrition$1,200Animals$1,141Religion$1,000

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 budgetKENTUCKY RESOURCES COUNCIL INC: $8,750 over 8y, 1.0% of budgetRIVER FIELDS INC: $2,250 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $1,350 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES INC: $1,200 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetIMPACT100 LOUISVILLE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetJEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH FUND INC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetThe Food Literacy Project at Oxmoor Farm Inc: $750 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetBRIDGEHAVEN INC: $650 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetOld Friends Inc: $550 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNITY OF LOUISVILLE INC: $550 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTREESLOUISVILLE INC: $450 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetLEGAL AID SOCIETY INC: $450 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetDARE TO CARE INC: $450 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BERRY CENTER INC: $350 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetKENTUCKY HUMANE SOCIETY - ANIMAL RESCUE: $300 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetBLUEGRASS LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKENTUCKY WATERWAYS ALLIANCE INC: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKENTUCKY HEARTWOOD INC: $150 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $125 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE KENTUCKY SCIENCE CENTER INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FILSON HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $75 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $50 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $50 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL 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.

  • Who funds KENTUCKY RESOURCES COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds RIVER FIELDS INC ↗
  • Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
  • Who funds THE CENTER FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES INC ↗
  • Who funds IMPACT100 LOUISVILLE INC ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH HERITAGE MITZVAH FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds The Food Literacy Project at Oxmoor Farm Inc ↗
  • Who funds BRIDGEHAVEN INC ↗
  • Who funds Old Friends Inc ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH COMMUNITY OF LOUISVILLE INC ↗
  • Who funds TREESLOUISVILLE INC ↗
  • Who funds LEGAL AID SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds DARE TO CARE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE BERRY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds KENTUCKY HUMANE SOCIETY - ANIMAL RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds KENTUCKY DANCE COUNCIL INC DBA LOUISVILLE BALLET ↗
  • Who funds BLUEGRASS LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds KENTUCKY WATERWAYS ALLIANCE INC ↗
  • Who funds SIERRA CLUB ↗
  • Who funds BECKHAM BIRD CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds KENTUCKY HEARTWOOD INC ↗
  • Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND 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.

Snowy Owl Foundation …The Community Foundat…W L Lyons Brown Found…The Community Foundat…Sociable Weaver Found…The Community Foundat…Mightycause Charitabl…Charles L Weisberg Fa…Owsley Brown II Famil…LG&E and Ku Foundatio…Clifton Foundation IncThe Gheens Foundation…
Snowy Owl Foundation IncKY30.3× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Snowy Owl Foundation Inc · The Community Foundation of Louisville Inc · W L Lyons Brown Foundation · The Community Foundation of Louisville Depository Inc · Sociable Weaver Foundation Inc · The Community Foundation of Louisville Corporate Depository Inc · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Charles L Weisberg Family Foundation · Owsley Brown II Family Foundation Inc · LG&E and Ku Foundation Inc · Clifton Foundation Inc · The Gheens 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 Rudd Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rudd Foundation Inc. 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 50 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rudd’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