Skip to content
Bernard & Nancy Karwick Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Bernard & Nancy Karwick Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$231k
Granted FY2019
26
Grants FY2019
16
States reached
$29k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

92% of Bernard & Nancy Karwick Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Mayo Clinic, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 12 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year Bernard & Nancy Karwick Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 20 organizations, $231k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

16
’17
19
’18
20
’19
0
’20
22
’21
15
’22
15
’23
12
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$1.5MAnimals$495kPublic Benefit$299kEnvironment$90kInternational$39kHuman Services$37kSocial Science$34kScience & Tech$34kOther$0
02FY2019 · 26 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k15 grants · $52k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $179k
$5,000
Median grant
16
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CATO INSTITUTE$29,000
AMPHIBIAN ARK$20,000
JUDICIAL WATCH$20,000
MAYO CLINIC$20,000
DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA$20,000
AMERICAN HIMALAYAN FUND$15,000
WILD ANIMAL HEALTH FD AMERICAN ASSOC OF ZOO VETERINARIANS$15,000
ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL$10,000
A KID'S BRAIN TUMOR CURE$10,000
ATLAS NETWORK$10,000
AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL FOUNDATION$10,000
SEMPER FI FUND$6,000
HIMALAYAN CATARACT PROJECT$5,000
NATIONAL PEDIATRIC CANCER FOUNDATION$5,000
MARINE MAMMAL CENTER$5,000
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 (FY17–24, $34k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 77% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%RECREATIONAL AVIATION FOUNDATION: $500 → 10%4PAWS FOR ABILITY: $10k → 9%CHARITY NAVIGATOR: $3k → 7%RECREATIONAL AVIATION FOUNDATION: $500 → 10%4PAWS FOR ABILITY: $5k → 9%CHARITY NAVIGATOR: $2k → 7%RECREATIONAL AVIATION FOUNDATION: $500 → 10%4PAWS FOR ABILITY: $5k → 9%CHARITY NAVIGATOR: $1k → 7%RECREATIONAL AVIATION FOUNDATION: $500 → 10%4PAWS FOR ABILITY: $3k → 9%CHARITY NAVIGATOR: $1k → 7%4PAWS FOR ABILITY: $500 → 9%4PAWS FOR ABILITY: $500 → 9%CHARITY NAVIGATOR: $1k → 7%CHARITY NAVIGATOR: $100 → 7%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.

Which US states its grants reach

VT
WA
MT
MN
IL
NY
MA
OH
NJ
CA
CO
VA
AZ
NM
TN
DC
HI
AL
GA
FL
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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 31 repeat orgs$77k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +63% since the first grant, against +45% for those funded once.

31 repeat relationships: 24 still active in FY2019, 7 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

31
8

Total granted

$1.1M
$47k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+63%
+45%

Still filing today

74%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
AnimalsHealthPublic BenefitHuman ServicesEnvironmentInternationalOther
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

  • CI
    CATO INSTITUTE
    7× · 2017–2024 · $199k · revenue +70%
  • AA
    AMPHIBIAN ARK
    7× · 2017–2024 · $160k · revenue +31%
  • JUDICIAL WATCH INC
    4× · 2017–2021 · $70k · revenue +141%

Funded once

  • AA
    AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOO VETERINARIANS COgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue +93%
  • OC
    OCEAN CONSERVANCYgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +31%
  • MB
    MONARCH BUTTERFLY FUND
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
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
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
2
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…

Science & Tech
3
United States Naval Institute

Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.

—
4
Fauna & Flora International Usa Inc

Our mission is to act to conserve threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, based on sound science and take into account human needs.

Philanthropy
5
Aquarium of the Pacific Corporation

The aquarium of the pacific's mission is to instill a sense of wonder, respect, and stewardship for the pacific ocean, its inhabitants, and ecosystems.

Animals
6
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
7
The Institute for Bird Populations

The institute for bird populations enables science-based conservation of species and habitats by studying the abundance, demography, and ecology of birds and other wildlife.

Animals
8
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education
9
National Marine Mammal Foundation Inc

The nmmf's mission is to improve and protect life for marine mammals, humans, and our shared oceans through science, service, and education. our vision is to be the leading laboratory in marine mammal science, where critical questions…

Animals
10
Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology Inc

Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.

Science & Tech
11
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

To sustain, restore, and enhance the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats.

Animals
12
International Biomedical Research Alliance

Our mission is to invest in and accelerate the development of the most promising future leaders in biomedical research with global impact.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Judicial Watch Inc; the most unlike its peers is Advocates for Snake Preservation. 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

33 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. 33 of the 47 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
32/33
Grantees still filing
29/33
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MAYO CLINIC: $1,440,000 · HealthMAYO CLINIC+5 more: $72,700 · HealthWILD ANIMAL HEALTH FD AMERICAN ASSOC OF ZOO VETERINARIANS: $136,500 · OtherWILD ANIMAL HEALT…AMERICAN HIMALAYAN FUND: $80,000 · OtherAMERICAN HIMALAYA…A KID'S BRAIN TUMOR CURE: $30,000 · OtherA KID'S BRAIN TUM…ATLAS NETWORK: $29,000 · OtherATLAS NETWORKTHE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE: $25,400 · OtherTHE INDEPENDENT I…+18 more: $86,500 · Other+18 moreCATO INSTITUTE: $199,000 · Public BenefitCATO INSTITUT…JUDICIAL WATCH INC: $70,000 · Public BenefitJUDICIAL WATC…EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC: $20,000 · Public BenefitEMPIRE CENTER…INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE: $10,000 · Public BenefitAMPHIBIAN ARK: $160,000 · PhilanthropyTHE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INC: $45,000 · AnimalsAMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $35,000 · AnimalsTHE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER: $16,000 · AnimalsAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOO VETERINARIANS CO: $15,000 · AnimalsADVOCATES FOR SNAKE PRESERVATION: $13,000 · AnimalsINTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST: $9,500 · AnimalsMAUI HUMANE SOCIETY: $8,500 · AnimalsFoundation for the Preservation of Honeybees: $5,000 · AnimalsHIMALAYAN CATARACT PROJECT INC: $27,000 · InternationalWATER FOR PEOPLE: $11,600 · International4 PAWS FOR ABILITY INC: $24,000 · Human ServicesCharity Navigator: $7,600 · Human ServicesRECREATIONAL AVIATION FOUNDATION: $2,000 · Human Services
Health$1,512,700Other$387,400Public Benefit$299,000Philanthropy$160,000Animals$147,000International$38,600Human Services$33,600

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMAYO CLINIC: $1,440,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCATO INSTITUTE: $199,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetAMPHIBIAN ARK: $160,000 over 7y, 19% of budgetJUDICIAL WATCH INC: $70,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INC: $45,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetAMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $35,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $31,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetHIMALAYAN CATARACT PROJECT INC: $27,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSEMPER FI & AMERICA'S FUND: $26,500 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetTHE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE: $25,400 over 4y, 0.3% of budget4 PAWS FOR ABILITY INC: $24,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetEMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC: $20,000 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetTHE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER: $16,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOO VETERINARIANS CO: $15,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetADVOCATES FOR SNAKE PRESERVATION: $13,000 over 7y, 7.3% of budgetWATER FOR PEOPLE: $11,600 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetINDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetINTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST: $9,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMAUI HUMANE SOCIETY: $8,500 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetPROJECT VERITAS: $8,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCharity Navigator: $7,600 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetCornell University: $7,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA: $5,700 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetOCEAN CONSERVANCY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFoundation for the Preservation of Honeybees: $5,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetNATIONAL PEDIATRIC CANCER FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBig Waters Land Trust Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPediatric Brain Tumor Foundation of the United States Inc: $4,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetOcean Alliance Inc: $2,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRECREATIONAL AVIATION FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetLUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE FOR AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON AGING: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% 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 MAYO CLINIC ↗
  • Who funds CATO INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds AMPHIBIAN ARK ↗
  • Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
  • Who funds THE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
  • Who funds HIMALAYAN CATARACT PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds SEMPER FI & AMERICA'S FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds 4 PAWS FOR ABILITY INC ↗
  • Who funds EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC ↗
  • Who funds THE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOO VETERINARIANS CO ↗
  • Who funds ADVOCATES FOR SNAKE PRESERVATION ↗
  • Who funds WATER FOR PEOPLE ↗
  • Who funds INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST ↗
  • Who funds MAUI HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT VERITAS ↗
  • Who funds Charity Navigator ↗
  • Who funds Cornell University ↗
  • Who funds SANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA ↗
  • Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds THE BIODIVERSITY GROUP ↗
  • Who funds Foundation for the Preservation of Honeybees ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL PEDIATRIC CANCER FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Big Waters Land Trust Inc ↗
  • Who funds Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation of the United States Inc ↗
  • Who funds Ocean Alliance Inc ↗

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.

Jpmorgan Chase Founda…Vanguard Charitable E…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…American Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
Jpmorgan Chase FoundationNY9.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving 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 Bernard & Nancy Karwick Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bernard & Nancy Karwick Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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 47 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Bernard & Nancy Karwick’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