· Private foundation
Victor L Blood and Maudaline L Blood Charitable Foundation Inc
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 79% of VICTOR L BLOOD AND MAUDALINE L BLOOD CHARITABLE 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LEROY AMBULANCE SERVICE | $5,000 |
| LEROY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY PROJECT | $4,500 |
| AMERICAN LEGION | $4,500 |
| HOPE CENTER OF LEROY | $4,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $4,000 |
| LEROY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH | $4,000 |
| SUNSHINE NURSERY SCHOOL | $4,000 |
| LEROY SPORTS BOOSTERS | $4,000 |
| FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH | $3,500 |
| PURPLE PONY THERAPUTIC HORSEMANSHIP | $3,000 |
| LOVE BUGS LEARNING CENTER | $3,000 |
| LEROY HISTORICAL SOCIETY | $3,000 |
| LEROY ROTARY COMMUNITY KITCHEN | $2,500 |
| FAITH COMMUNITY CHURCH | $2,500 |
| LEROY BUSINESS COUNCIL | $1,750 |
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 (FY21–25, $31k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% 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 +59% since the first grant, against -37% for the ones you funded once.
27 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 13 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, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k 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
- LALEROY AMBULANCE SERVICE INC9× · 2017–2025 · $45k · revenue +59%
- HCHOPE CENTER OF LEROY INC5× · 2021–2025 · $24k · revenue +131%
Project Stork Inc3× · 2021–2023 · $7k · revenue +192%
Funded once
- LCLEROY COMMUNITY POOL ASSSOCIATIONone grant, 2017 · $5k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $5k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $4k
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.
To serve as a voluntary general ambulance and advanced life support service for the rural towns of lenox, lincoln, and the villages of wampsville and canastota, new york.
Promote history of the city of LeRoy
Non-profit childcare program serving children 6 wks-12 yrs old. 24 hour service(if needed). developmental program meeting needs of children.
Provide emergency & routine ambulance services
Historical society providing education on local aviation.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hope Center of Leroy Inc and the most unlike its peers is The William L Richter Family Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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. 8 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 LEROY AMBULANCE SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds HOPE CENTER OF LEROY INC ↗
- Who funds LEROY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds MACHPELAH CEMETERY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Project Stork Inc ↗
- Who funds LOVE BUGS LEARNING CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds YWCA OF GENESEE COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds THE WILLIAM L RICHTER FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
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: Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo 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 Victor L Blood and Maudaline L Blood Charitable 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 Victor L Blood and Maudaline L Blood Charitable Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Victor L Blood and Maudaline L Blood Charitable 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.