· Private foundation
Anna Pitzl and J Fred Krost Charitab
Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COLLEGE OF ST BENEDICT | $36,000 |
| CHURCH OF ST JOSEPH THE WORKER | $25,498 |
| HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INST | $18,000 |
| DUNWOODY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY | $18,000 |
| MANKATO REHABILITATION CENTER | $18,000 |
| SOUTH CENTRAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION | $18,000 |
| JEREMIAH PROGRAM | $12,001 |
| IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY SEMINARY | $12,001 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE WINONA | $12,001 |
| SOCIETY FOR PROPAGATION OF FAITH | $12,001 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
12 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2026, 2 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2026, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- DCDUNWOODY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY8× · 2019–2026 · $156k · revenue +66%
- MRMANKATO REHABILITATION CENTER INC8× · 2019–2026 · $156k · revenue +96%
- JPJEREMIAH PROGRAM8× · 2019–2026 · $104k · revenue +118%
Funded once
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.
6 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 6 of the 12 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.
Open a dossier: Krost J Fredanna Pitzl Char Tr #1
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Anna Pitzl and J Fred Krost Charitab funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Anna Pitzl and J Fred Krost Charitab. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Play a game based on Anna Pitzl and J Fred Krost Charitab’s filings →