· Public charity
The Wright Center Medical Group
(see on schedule o)
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $387,327 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,188,022 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $800,695 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $63k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $318k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| The Pennsylvania State University | $134,525 |
| The Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education | $126,000 |
| Patient Engagement Council | $57,391 |
| Maternal & Family Health Services | $49,308 |
| Outreach Center for Community Resources | $13,436 |
| America250PA | $6,667 |
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 (FY19–25, $834k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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 +55% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 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, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
- MFMATERNAL & FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES INC7× · 2019–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +55%
- TWThe Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education6× · 2020–2025 · $704k · revenue +32%
- TSTELESPOND SENIOR SERVICES INC3× · 2021–2023 · $643k · revenue +81%
Funded once
- TWThe Wright Center Allianceone grant, 2024 · $110k
- NMNATIVITY MIGUEL SCRANTONone grant, 2023 · $38k
- UUPMCone grant, 2021 · $34k
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.
(see on schedule o)
Working as an integrated system within highmark health, employees at all of ahn's care sites, including hospitals, health + wellness pavilions, primary and specialty care offices and more, are committed to improving health and promoting…
Strive to make better health easier by providing access to affordable, high quality health services through equitable, innovative, and inclusive care models that support patient care, education, research, & community service.
Establish and maintain a medical group consisting of clinicians employed by lehigh valley health network. this medical group will fulfill the charitable mission of promoting community health through health education, injury prevention, and…
Upmc pinnacle hospitals mission as a charitable organization is dedicatied to maintaining and improving the health and quality of life for all persons of the central pennsylvania area.
Penn state health's mission is to continually improve the health and well-being of the people of pennsylvania, and beyond. the organization provides patients with excellent, compassionate and equitable care; educates and trains (continued…
Strive to make better health easier by providing access to affordable, high quality health services through equitable, innovative, and inclusive care models that support patient care, education, research, & community services.
Strive to make better health easier by providing access to affordable, high quality health services through equitable, innovative, and inclusive care models that support patient care, education, research, and community service.
Pinnacle health medical services is a charitable organization dedicated to maintaining and improving the health and quality of life for all the people of central pennsylvania by providing primary, clinic, family and specialty physician…
Provides the community necessary medical care through specialty physicians.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Wright Center Alliance and the most unlike its peers is The Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 22 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 MATERNAL & FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds The Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education ↗
- Who funds TELESPOND SENIOR SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds OUTREACH - CENTER FOR COMMUNITY RESOURCES ↗
- Who funds Patient Engagement Council ↗
- Who funds TREHAB INC ↗
- Who funds ENDLESS MOUNTAINS HEALTH SYSTEMS INC ↗
- Who funds WAYNE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ↗
- Who funds WAYNE MEMORIAL COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS ↗
- Who funds Commonwealth Dental Care Initiative ↗
- Who funds THE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Philadelphia Visitor Center Corporation ↗
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 Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education · Moses Taylor Foundation Inc · Scranton Area Foundation Inc · The Hawk Family Foundation · Allone Foundation · The Honesdale National Bank Foundation · Allone Charities · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Wright Center Medical Group 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.