Skip to content

· Private foundation

Ruth D Strom Trust Xxx-Xx-Xxxx

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.

$45k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$306kHousing & Shelter$12k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $35k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$8,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$839k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WHEEL TO WALK FOUNDATION$10,000
HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER$8,500
FORWARD STRIDE$8,500
HEALING REINS THERAPEUTIC RIDING CTR$8,500
HORSES OF HOPE OREGON$5,000
NEW AVENUES FOR YOUTH$4,133
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, $72k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 8% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%FORWARD STRIDE: $10k → 8%FORWARD STRIDE: $10k → 8%FORWARD STRIDE: $10k → 8%FORWARD STRIDE: $10k → 8%FORWARD STRIDE: $9k → 8%ALBERTINA KERR CENTERS: $6k → 12%FORWARD STRIDE: $9k → 8%FORWARD STRIDE: $9k → 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$312k · 6 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +81% since the first grant, against +35% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
1

Total granted

$312k
$6k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+81%
+35%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
HealthHuman ServicesAnimalsOther
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

  • WT
    WHEEL TO WALK FOUNDATION
    7× · 2019–2025 · $70k · revenue +42%
  • HE
    HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER
    7× · 2019–2025 · $63k · revenue +81%
  • HR
    HEALING REINS EQUINE ASSISTED SERVICES INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $56k · revenue +84%

Funded once

  • ALBERTINA KERR CENTERSgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $6k · revenue +35%
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
04the 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WHEEL TO WALK FOUNDATION: $70,000 · HealthWHEEL TO WALK FOUNDATIONHEALING REINS EQUINE ASSISTED SERVICES INC: $55,565 · HealthHEALING REINS EQUINE ASSISTED SERVICES INCHOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $62,518 · OtherHOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTERNEW AVENUES FOR YOUTH INC: $12,159 · OtherNEW AVENUES FOR YOUTH INCFORWARD STRIDE: $65,993 · Human ServicesFORWARD STRIDEALBERTINA KERR CENTERS: $6,000 · Human ServicesALBERTINA KERR CENTERSADAPTIVE RIDING INSTITUTE DBA HORSES OF HOPE OREGON: $45,889 · AnimalsADAPTIVE RIDING …
Health$125,565Other$74,677Human Services$71,993Animals$45,889

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWHEEL TO WALK FOUNDATION: $70,000 over 7y, 5.2% of budgetFORWARD STRIDE: $65,993 over 7y, 0.8% of budgetHOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $62,518 over 7y, 3.3% of budgetHEALING REINS EQUINE ASSISTED SERVICES INC: $55,565 over 6y, 1.4% of budgetADAPTIVE RIDING INSTITUTE DBA HORSES OF HOPE OREGON: $45,889 over 7y, 3.4% of budgetNEW AVENUES FOR YOUTH INC: $12,159 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetALBERTINA KERR CENTERS: $6,000 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 WHEEL TO WALK FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds FORWARD STRIDE ↗
  • Who funds HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER ↗
  • Who funds HEALING REINS EQUINE ASSISTED SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds ADAPTIVE RIDING INSTITUTE DBA HORSES OF HOPE OREGON ↗
  • Who funds NEW AVENUES FOR YOUTH INC ↗
  • Who funds ALBERTINA KERR CENTERS ↗

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.

The Oregon Community FoundationOR15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Oregon Community Foundation · Braemar Charitable Trust · 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 Ruth D Strom Trust Xxx-Xx-Xxxx funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ruth D Strom Trust Xxx-Xx-Xxxx. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Albertina Kerr Centers: 58% of income from government
  • New Avenues for Youth Inc: 12% of income from government
  • Healing Reins Equine Assisted Services Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Hope Equestrian Center: 4% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 7 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 Ruth D Strom Trust Xxx-Xx-Xxxx’s filings →

More from the funding graph