· Community foundation
The Greater Greenbrier Valley
THE GREATER GREENBRIER VALLEY community foundation, inc.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 69% of THE GREATER GREENBRIER VALLEY’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 · FY2022
- Under $10k9 grants · $53k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $116k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $364k
- $250k+1 grant · $361k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CITY OF WHITE SULPHER SPRINGS | $360,867 |
| DISABILITY OPPORTUNITY FUND | $225,000 |
| CARNEGIE HALL FOUNDATION INC | $89,000 |
| SENECA TRAIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| OLD STONE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH | $24,850 |
| NEW RIVER COMMUNITY AND TECHICAL CO | $20,000 |
| UNITED WAY OF THE GREENBRIER VALLEY | $15,500 |
| CAMP ALLEGHENY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION | $15,500 |
| LUCKY PENNY | $10,000 |
| THE LEWISBURG FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| GREENBRIER MILITARY SCHOOL ALUMNI | $10,000 |
| GREENBRIER COUNTY SCHOOLS | $10,000 |
| HUMANE SOCIETY OF POCAHONTAS | $7,900 |
| ST THOMAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH | $7,200 |
| WVU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | $6,000 |
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 (FY20–22, $264k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 15% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +67% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
21 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2022, 12 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (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 FY2022, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $302k 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
- STSENECA TRAIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION4× · 2018–2021 · $790k · revenue +34% · 48% of their budget
- LFLewisburg Foundation Incorporated7× · 2017–2024 · $497k · revenue +1%
- NRNEW RIVER COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC5× · 2019–2024 · $185k · revenue +16%
Funded once
- MDMENNONITE DISASTER SERVICEone grant, 2017 · $376k
- CECONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH CENTRAL WV INCone grant, 2017 · $276k · revenue +4% · 80% of their budget
- HFHOMES FOR WHIITE SULPHURSJ NEATHAWKone grant, 2017 · $268k
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.
Gvrp, inc. is an entity focused on watershed protection and sustainable community development. gvrp is concentrating its initial efforts in two areas: public fundraising and development of a community center and charitable open space in…
Economic Development and Tourism Promotion in Eastern Kentucky
Promotes the conservation of natural resources
The mission of the Kanawha Salines Foundation Inc. is to encourage and facilitate the preservation of the legacy of the Kanawha Valley salt industry. To further this mission the Foundation will collect photographs, relics, documents,…
Scholarships
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of the Greenbrier Valley Inc and the most unlike its peers is Lucky Penny. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 26 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
26 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. 26 of the 105 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 CARNEGIE HALL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SENECA TRAIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Lewisburg Foundation Incorporated ↗
- Who funds CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH CENTRAL WV INC ↗
- Who funds THE DISABILITY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds NEW RIVER COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CARNEGIE HALL INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF THE GREENBRIER VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds STATE FAIR OF WEST VIRGINIA ↗
- Who funds Alderson Main Street Inc ↗
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: The Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation · Mary B Nickell Foundation Inc · The Jeanne G Hamilton and Lawson W Hamilton Jr Family Foundation Inc · Hollowell Dawkins Foundation Inc · The Daywood Foundationinc · United Way of the Greenbrier Valley Inc · Tgkvf Inc · Abner & Mildred Levine Family Foundation Inc · Peoples Bank Foundation · The West Virginia Humanities Council Inc · West Virginia University Research Corporation · National Collegiate Athletic Association
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 The Greater Greenbrier Valley 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 The Greater Greenbrier Valley?
Find your warmest path to The Greater Greenbrier Valley 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.