Skip to content
W Noyes Jr & Ruth Duerr Baker Charitable at a glance

· Private foundation

W Noyes Jr & Ruth Duerr Baker Charitable

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.

$41k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$19k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Animals$106kFood & Nutrition$3k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $39k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MDCT RICH CRITTERS FUND$18,922
A FOREVER HOME ANIMAL RESCUE INC$10,000
CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE$10,000
LAKE CARES INC$2,500
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 (FY23–25, $30k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE: $10k → 13%CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE: $10k → 13%Canine Companions for Independence: $10k → 13%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.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$85k · 7 repeat orgs$23k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
2

Total granted

$85k
$11k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+9%
+133%

Still filing today

43%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsHuman ServicesOther
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

  • MR
    MDCT RICH CRITTERS FUND
    2× · 2024–2025 · $33k
  • CC
    CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $30k · revenue +9%
  • LI
    LEASH INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $10k

Funded once

  • RH
    Retirement Home For Horses Incgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue +33%
  • JF
    JESSES FUND FOR THERAPY DOGS INC
    one grant, 2020 · $858 · revenue +133% · 95% of their budget
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
Jl Animal Rescue Inc
Animals
2
Forgotten Tails Animal Rescue Inc

Saving dogs

Animals
3
Hope Fur Paws Rescue

To help injured, abandoned and unwanted animals. We provide food, vet care that includes heartworm prevention and spay or neuter services, shelter and anything else needed.

Animals
4
St Clouds Rescue
Animals
5
Pets Without Partners

Find homes for homeless/abandoned dogs. Provide full vet car and housing while awaiting adoption,

Animals
6
Almost Home Canine Rescue

Resuce, care and adopting canines

Animals
7
Love & Paws Rescue Inc

Animal Rescue

Animals
8
Donna's Love Pet Rescue
Animals
9
Animal Rescue and Adoption Agency Inc

An animal rescue/adoption Agency. Rescued animals are from kill shelters or owner surrenders facing hardship then rehabbed/medical completed while in foster care then adopted into loving homes.

Animals
10
Their Lives Matter

Dog rescue and care nurturing finding a home

Animals
11
Take Me Home Dog Rescue

Rescue dogs that are at risk in high kill shelters and ready them for adoption in forever homes

—
12
Pet Rescue Miami Inc
Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Leash Inc; the most unlike its peers is Jesses Fund for Therapy Dogs 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

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 11 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)
6/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MDCT RICH CRITTERS FUND: $32,770 · OtherMDCT RICH CRITTERS FUNDCARING CANINES THERAPY DOGS INC: $4,697 · OtherCARING CANINES THERAPY DOGS INCPAWS THERAPY DOGS INC: $2,100 · Other+1 more: $858 · OtherLEASH INC: $10,486 · AnimalsLEASH INCRetirement Home For Horses Inc: $10,000 · AnimalsRetirement Home For Horses IncA FOREVER HOME ANIMAL RESCUE INC: $10,000 · AnimalsA FOREVER HOME ANIMAL RESCUE INCHUMANE SOCIETY OF LAKE COUNTY INC: $3,500 · AnimalsHUMANE SOCIETY OF LAKE COUNTY INCPAW WARRIORS INC: $1,847 · AnimalsCANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC: $30,000 · Human ServicesCANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENC…Lake Cares Inc: $2,500 · Human ServicesLake Cares Inc
Other$40,425Animals$35,833Human Services$32,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLEASH INC: $10,486 over 5y, 6.7% of budgetRetirement Home For Horses Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetA FOREVER HOME ANIMAL RESCUE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF LAKE COUNTY INC: $3,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetPAW WARRIORS INC: $1,847 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetJESSES FUND FOR THERAPY DOGS INC: $858 over 1y, 95% 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.

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.

The Bank of America C…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Bank of America Charitable Foundation IncNC7.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 W Noyes Jr & Ruth Duerr Baker Charitable funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from W Noyes Jr & Ruth Duerr Baker Charitable. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    5get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 11 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on W Noyes Jr & Ruth Duerr Baker’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