· Private foundation
The Wright-Hager Foundation Inc
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k17 grants · $94k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $97k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE UPPER VALLEY HAVEN | $25,000 |
| STEP OF FAITH MINISTRY | $20,000 |
| THE HANOVER IMPROVEMENT SOCIETY | $11,000 |
| FULFILL | $11,000 |
| EDNA W RUNNER TUTORIAL CENTER | $10,000 |
| MOOSILAUKE VISIONS | $10,000 |
| FOOD BANK OF DELAWARE | $10,000 |
| LA PUENTA HOME INC | $8,000 |
| THE TREVOR PROJECT | $7,500 |
| THE WATERWHEEL FOUNDATION | $7,500 |
| UPPER VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY | $7,500 |
| ALLAIRE COMMUNITY FARM | $7,000 |
| CODE PURPLE KENT COUNTY | $6,000 |
| TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND | $5,000 |
| SURFERS HEALING | $5,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $171k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 28% 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 +78% since the first grant, against +29% for the ones you funded once.
40 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2025, 18 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, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k 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
- UVUPPER VALLEY HAVEN9× · 2017–2025 · $211k · revenue +107%
- SOSTEP OF FAITH MINISTRY INC9× · 2017–2025 · $142k · revenue +42%
- HIHANOVER IMPROVEMENT SOCIETY CORPORATION9× · 2017–2025 · $123k · revenue +6%
Funded once
- HTHEART TO HEART INTERNATIONAL INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue +151%
- FBFOOD BANK OF THE ROCKIESone grant, 2020 · $13k · revenue +23%
- WNWYLDER NATION FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -76%
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.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
Eastern national promotes the public's understanding and support of america's national parks and other public trust partners by providing quality educational experiences, products and services.
Waterstep focuses on providing safe water, sanitation, and hygiene solutions to communities in need around the world. its mission is rooted in the belief that safe water is a basic human right and a critical foundation for health,…
Protect land along rivers, lakes and wetlands of vt; protect public access, wildlife habitat, scenic natural beauty, and ecological integrity.
Food & water watch conducts extensive research and public education to ensure the food and water we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced. so we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of…
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
Northeast wilderness trust is a regional land trust working to preserve and restore forever-wild landscapes for nature and people in new york, vermont, new hampshire, maine, massachusetts and connecticut.
Marin humane transforms lives through exceptional animal care, humane education, and advocacy. every day, marin humane inspires compassion and positive relationships between people and animals.
Our mission is to ensure that the people of greater boston benefit from a vibrant, resilient, and inclusive waterfront, harbor, and islands; these spaces are equitable, accessible, and adapted to climate change; and to ensure our public,…
The connecticut humane society is the leading resource in the state for companion animal welfare, enriching the lives of families and communities through adoption services, medical care, education, and prevention of cruelty.
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Convoy of Hope and the most unlike its peers is Step of Faith Ministry Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 33 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
43 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. 43 of the 66 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 UPPER VALLEY HAVEN ↗
- Who funds STEP OF FAITH MINISTRY INC ↗
- Who funds HANOVER IMPROVEMENT SOCIETY CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds WEST JUPITER COMMUNITY GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK OF DELAWARE INC ↗
- Who funds THE FOODBANK OF MONMOUTH AND OCEAN COUNTIES INC D/B/A FULFILL ↗
- Who funds CONVOY OF HOPE ↗
- Who funds TREVOR PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds UPPER VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds ALLAIRE COMMUNITY FARM A NJ NONPROFIT CO ↗
- Who funds LA PUENTE HOME INC ↗
- Who funds Code Purple Kent County Delaware Inc ↗
- Who funds PROTECT OUR WINTERS ↗
- Who funds THE WATERWHEEL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Surfers Healing Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds American Whitewater ↗
- Who funds FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds COLORADO WATER TRUST ↗
- Who funds SUMMIT HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds HEART TO HEART INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds PURPLE HEART HOMES INC ↗
- Who funds ARK-VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds SPINA BIFIDA ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK OF THE ROCKIES ↗
- Who funds POSITIVE TRACKS INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds Moosilauke Visions Inc ↗
- Who funds WYLDER NATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CHILD MIND INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds ELS FOR AUTISM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WE R HOPE ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN OCEAN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 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: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · The Couch Family Foundation · Barrette Family Fund · Lubrano Family Charitable Foundation Emmett Lyne Trustee C/O Rich May PC · Kettering Family Foundation · Schon Family Foundation · Hypertherm Hope Foundation Inc · Emily Landecker Foundation Inc · Mascoma Bank Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Aetna Foundation Inc · Enterprise Holdings 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-Hager 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Code Purple Kent County Delaware Inc — 100% of income from government
- Upper Valley Haven — 38% of income from government
- Food Bank of Delaware Inc — 26% of income from government
- Vital Communities Inc — 5% of income from government
- American Whitewater — 5% of income from government
- Montshire Museum of Science Inc — 4% of income from government
- We R Hope — 0% of income from government
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 Wright-Hager Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Wright-Hager 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.