· 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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 60% of RHOADES SANFORD FOUNDATION INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $12k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $51k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $519k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| KAUKAUNA HIGH SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIP | $5,000 |
| WAUPACA HIGH SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIP FOU | $5,000 |
| NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE | $1,500 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your 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. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +84% since the first grant, against +35% for the ones you 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $242k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- CICOLLEGEREADY INC7× · 2017–2025 · $649k · revenue +304%
- FNFUTURE NEENAH INC5× · 2017–2023 · $197k · revenue +84%
- CHCATALPA HEALTH INC2× · 2017–2023 · $80k · revenue +33%
Funded once
- TFTHEDACARE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · $150k
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INCone grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +1%
- GSGREATER SHAWANO AREA RECOVER INITIAone grant, 2023 · $40k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Inspiring all girls to be strong, smart, and bold.
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.
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…
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…
To nurture, educate and enrich children and youth for life-long success.
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…
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.
We lead, serve and collaborate with donors to create enduring philanthropy.
Chamber of commerce to support, ancourage and engage in activities that make the greater Beloit area a better place to live and do business.
Enhancing and strengthening our community and our regional core.
We conduct impartial public policy research and analysis to drive informed debate and effective decision-making in the state of wisconsin.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Greater Green Bay Community Foundation Inc and 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.
15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, 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; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your 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 ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
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
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Rhoades Sanford Foundation Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
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.