Skip to content
The Straddlefork Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Straddlefork Foundation

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.

$66k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$24k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Religion$64kEnvironment$24kHealth$22kArts & Culture$18kEducation$12kHuman Services$9kAnimals$4kPhilanthropy$4kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $49k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$988k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHAPEL OF THE CROSS EPISCOPAL CHURC$24,000
CAMP BRATTON GREEN GRAY CENTER$15,000
DELTA COTTON BELLES$10,000
GREENVILE CEMETARY ASSOCIATION$5,000
ST VINCENT DE PAUL$5,000
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY$2,500
MISSISSIPPI ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE$2,000
WASHINGTON COUNTY MASTER GARDNERS$2,000
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 (FY22–22, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 21%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 21%FORREST SPENCE FUND: $3k → 17%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.

51%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$82k · 9 repeat orgs$79k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
16

Total granted

$82k
$44k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-3%
+13%

Still filing today

56%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 47% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EducationArts & CultureHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesHealthEnvironmentOther
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

  • CO
    CHAPEL OF THE CROSS EPISCOPAL CHURC
    2× · 2022–2024 · $26k
  • SJ
    ST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH
    2× · 2021–2023 · $15k
  • SV
    ST VINCENT DE PAUL
    3× · 2022–2024 · $12k

Funded once

  • GC
    GREENVILLE CYPRESS PRESERVE TRUSTgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $6k · revenue +73% · 48% of their budget
  • DS
    DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY - DULCE FUND
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
  • ML
    MISSISSIPPI LOWER DELTA PARTNERSHIP
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
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
Delta Council

Improvement of the business conditions of agriculture and trade in the mississippi delta communities and in industrial development in the mississippi delta

—
2
Economic Development Center of Washington County Inc

To promote and assist in economic development, job creation and job training for washington county, ms and surrounding areas. to promote and assist existing businesses in the area.

Community Improvement
3
Center for Mississippi Healthpolicy
Health
4
Gulfport Little Theatre Inc

Provide live theatre for all ages and abilities

—
5
Yazoo Library Association

The Yazoo Library Association Provides Public Library Services to the Citizens of Yazoo County, Mississippi

Education
6
Dekalb Tourism Inc

To promote travel and tourism within dekalb county, alabama

—
7
Shelby County Historical Society

Preserve the history of shelby county al

—
8
Sumter Museum

Operation of county museum and preservation of museum assets

Arts & Culture
9
Central Ms Housing and Development Corp

Promoting and supporting the development of quality affordable housing to the community it serves, including the acquisition, development, construction, and operation thereof.

Housing & Shelter
10
Greenwood Mississippi Cemetery Association

Operate and maintain a cemetery

Membership Benefit
11
Northwest Al Mental Health Center

Community mental health center

Health
12
Delphos Canal Commission

Operate local historical museum

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of Washington County Inc; the most unlike its peers is Foundation for the Mid South 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

12 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. 12 of the 30 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHAPEL OF THE CROSS EPISCOPAL CHURC: $26,000 · OtherCHAPEL OF THE CROSS EPISCOPAL CHURCST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH: $15,000 · OtherST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCHCAMP BRATTON GREEN GRAY CENTER: $15,000 · OtherCAMP BRATTON GREEN GRAY CENTERST VINCENT DE PAUL: $12,000 · OtherST VINCENT DE PAULDELTA STATE UNIVERSITY - DULCE FUND: $5,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherMISSISSIPPI LOWER DELTA PARTNERSHIP: $5,000 · OtherGREENVILE CEMETARY ASSOCIATION: $5,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER INC: $5,000 · Other+14 more: $30,000 · Other+14 moreDELTA COTTON BELLES INC: $10,000 · HealthGREENVILLE CYPRESS PRESERVE TRUST: $6,000 · EducationSHARKEY-ISSAQUENA COUNTY LIBRARY: $4,000 · EducationMISSISSIPPIS LOWER DELTA PARTNERSHIP: $7,000 · EnvironmentGREENVILLE ARTS COUNCIL: $4,000 · Arts & CultureMISSISSIPPI ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE: $3,500 · AnimalsGRACE HOUSE INC: $2,500 · Housing & Shelter
Other$123,000Health$10,000Education$10,000Environment$7,000Arts & Culture$4,000Animals$3,500Housing & Shelter$2,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDELTA COTTON BELLES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetMISSISSIPPIS LOWER DELTA PARTNERSHIP: $7,000 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetGREENVILLE CYPRESS PRESERVE TRUST: $6,000 over 1y, 48% of budgetCOMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER INC: $5,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetSHARKEY-ISSAQUENA COUNTY LIBRARY: $4,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetGREENVILLE ARTS COUNCIL: $4,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetMISSISSIPPI ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE: $3,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetGRACE HOUSE INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFORREST SPENCE FUND: $2,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetDELTA CENTER STAGE INC: $2,500 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR THE MID SOUTH INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 DELTA COTTON BELLES INC ↗
  • Who funds MISSISSIPPIS LOWER DELTA PARTNERSHIP ↗
  • Who funds GREENVILLE CYPRESS PRESERVE TRUST ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds SHARKEY-ISSAQUENA COUNTY LIBRARY ↗
  • Who funds GREENVILLE ARTS COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds MISSISSIPPI ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds GRACE HOUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds FORREST SPENCE FUND ↗
  • Who funds DELTA CENTER STAGE INC ↗
  • Who funds FOUNDATION FOR THE MID SOUTH INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 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.

Fred Schelben Foundat…Howard & Carole Brent…Reed Family Charitabl…Cortright Family Char…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fred Schelben FoundationAL13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fred Schelben Foundation · Howard & Carole Brent Foundation · Reed Family Charitable Foundation · Cortright Family Charitable Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 The Straddlefork Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Straddlefork Foundation. 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%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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 30 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $69k of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Straddlefork’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