Skip to content
Wade Ellen Garretson Ochr at a glance

· Private foundation

Wade Ellen Garretson Ochr

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.

$2.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
21
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$669k
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 2024.

Human Services$5.9MHealth$3.6MReligion$700kYouth Development$90kEmployment$85kHousing & Shelter$85kCommunity Improvement$85kArts & Culture$42kOther$0
02FY2025 · 21 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $25k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $179k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+2 grants · $959k
$17,930
Median grant
4
States reached
$41M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTER FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN$669,155
BEECH BROOK$289,974
RAINBOW BABIES CHILDRENS CORP$223,125
VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND$222,904
CLEVE CLINIC CHILDRENS HOSP$222,904
THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION$162,086
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM INC$111,563
FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST$103,207
APPLEWOOD CENTERS INC$53,789
THE SALVATION ARMY$35,859
THE A M MCGREGOR HOME$17,930
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS$17,930
CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND$17,930
EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF OHIO$17,930
VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE SERVICES$17,930
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 (FY20–25, $2.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%CENTER FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN: $669k → 17%CENTER FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN: $615k → 17%CENTER FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN: $611k → 17%CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND: $19k → 17%CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND: $18k → 17%CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND: $17k → 17%CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND: $16k → 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$13M · 29 repeat orgs$220k to everyone else

29 repeat relationships: 21 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

29
2

Total granted

$13M
$220k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+5%
+20%

Still filing today

34%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
HealthHuman ServicesEmploymentCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • BB
    Beech Brook
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +23%
  • AC
    APPLEWOOD CENTERS INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $309k · revenue +23%
  • VG
    VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE SERVICES
    6× · 2020–2025 · $103k · revenue +6%

Funded once

  • RB
    RAINBOW BABIES & CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2020 · $204k · revenue +20%
  • BS
    BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA GREATER
    one grant, 2020 · $16k
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
Circle Health Services

Circle Health fights for equity by healing, teaching, and inspiring individuals and families to reach their full potential.

—
2
Clermont Counseling Center

To ensure people with mental illness, addiction, and related challenges lead healthy and productive lives.

Health
3
United Children's Services of Bennington County Inc

Children's services

Human Services
4
Columbus Center for Human Services Inc

Inspiring life journeys

Human Services
5
Lewis County Community Health Services

To improve the health and well-being of the community by providing quality and compassionate health care services in a patient-centered atmosphere, respecting individual and cultural diversity.

Health
6
Lincoln Behavioral Services

To provide comprehensive outpatient mental health services to over 5400 individuals and their families in a consumer driven person centered delivery system. Approximately 15% of our staff members are our clients who are involved in a…

Health
7
Cleveland Hearing and Speech Center

Cleveland hearing and speech is the premier provider of hearing, speech-language and deaf services, education, and advocacy helping people connect through communication, regardless of ability to pay.

—
8
Child & Adolescent Behavioral Health

We are the premier childrens mental health agency that reduces the suffering experienced by children who have emotional problems related to depression, anxiety, and behavior like adhd. untreated, these problems can lead to failure in…

—
9
Columbus Neighborhood Health Center Inc

To serve the central ohio community with affordable, easy to access healthcare services.

Health
10
Community Reach Center Inc

Community reach center's mission is to enhance the health of our community.

Health
11
Cincinnati Center for Autism

We support individuals with autism and their families through programming in the areas of academics, adaptive behavior, communication, and social participation.

Education
12
Community Clinic Inc

Empower patients to partner with staff for an unparalleled healthcare experience through integrated primary care services teams in a learning environment. we deliver high quality, affordable care to every patient during all stages of life.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Center for Community Solutions; the most unlike its peers is The Hiram House. 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

11 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. 11 of the 31 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CENTER FOR FAMILIES CHILDREN: $1,952,450 · OtherCENTER FOR FAMILIES CHILDRENCLEVE CLINIC CHILDRENS HOSP: $1,281,591 · OtherCLEVE CLINIC CHILDRENS HOSPRAINBOW BABIES CHILDRENS CORP: $1,079,127 · OtherRAINBOW BABIES CHILDRENS CORPTHE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION: $691,954 · OtherTHE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATIONBEECH BROOK CHILDREN'S HOME: $531,156 · OtherBEECH BROOK CHILDREN'S HOMEUNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM INC: $437,078 · OtherUNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM INCFIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST: $323,862 · OtherAPPLEWOOD CENTERS INC: $309,263 · OtherFIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST: $309,213 · Other+15 more: $1,106,407 · Other+15 moreVISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND: $1,281,591 · HealthVISITING NURSE ASSOCIAT…Beech Brook: $1,136,057 · HealthBeech BrookRAINBOW BABIES & CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION: $203,736 · HealthRAINBOW BABIES & CHILDR…The Centers for Families and Children: $1,894,868 · Human ServicesThe Centers for F…CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND: $70,245 · Human ServicesVOCATIONAL GUIDANCE SERVICES: $103,088 · EmploymentTHE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS: $103,088 · Community Improvement
Other$8,022,101Health$2,621,384Human Services$1,965,113Employment$103,088Community Improvement$103,088

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetThe Centers for Families and Children: $1,894,868 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetVISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND: $1,281,591 over 6y, 2.3% of budgetBeech Brook: $1,136,057 over 4y, 3.0% of budgetAPPLEWOOD CENTERS INC: $309,263 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetRAINBOW BABIES & CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION: $203,736 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetTHE MCGREGOR FOUNDATION: $103,088 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetVOCATIONAL GUIDANCE SERVICES: $103,088 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS: $103,088 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetCLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND: $70,245 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetLexington Bell Community Center: $50,908 over 6y, 1.0% of budgetTHE HIRAM HOUSE: $36,765 over 6y, 0.5% 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 The Centers for Families and Children ↗
  • Who funds VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND ↗
  • Who funds Beech Brook ↗
  • Who funds APPLEWOOD CENTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds RAINBOW BABIES & CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE MCGREGOR FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS ↗
  • Who funds CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND ↗
  • Who funds Lexington Bell Community Center ↗
  • Who funds THE HIRAM HOUSE ↗

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 Cleveland Foundat…Rhodes Robert R TrThe George Gund Found…The Clara Weiss FundOhio Child Care Resou…Charities Aid Foundat…The Blackbaud Giving …Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
The Cleveland FoundationOH21.2× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Cleveland Foundation · Rhodes Robert R Tr · The George Gund Foundation · The Clara Weiss Fund · Ohio Child Care Resource and Referral Association · Charities Aid Foundation America · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Wade Ellen Garretson Ochr funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wade Ellen Garretson Ochr. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 31 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 Wade Ellen Garretson Ochr’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