Skip to content
Boulware Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Boulware 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.

$217k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$143k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Philanthropy$217kHuman Services$38kEducation$21kInternational$8kCommunity Improvement$7kEmployment$2k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$143,155
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SCHWAB CHARITABLE FUND$143,155
SCHWAB CHARITABLE FUND$73,842
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 (FY18–18, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%INTERFAITH FAMILY SERVICES: $5k → 14%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.

15%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$45k · 3 repeat orgs$247k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +21% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
5

Total granted

$45k
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%
+10%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $217k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHealthInternationalCommunity ImprovementHuman 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

  • TW
    THE WOMEN'S CENTER OF TARRANT COUNTY INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $20k · revenue +21%
  • TL
    THE LADDER ALLIANCE
    2× · 2021–2022 · $13k · revenue -35%
  • AD
    AMIGOS DE SANTA CRUZ FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $13k · revenue +184%

Funded once

  • HS
    HISPANIC SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS
    one grant, 2023 · $9k · revenue -11%
  • IR
    International Rescue Committee INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $8k · revenue +63%
  • NF
    NAMASTE FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $7k · revenue +10%
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
Mi Casa Resource Center

Advancing economic prosperity of the latino community.

Human Services
2
Women's Refugee Commission Inc

To improve the lives and protect the rights of women, children and youth displaced by conflict and crisis. the women's refugee commission envisions a world in which refugees are safe, healthy and reliant and seeks to drive change in…

Human Services
3
Women for Women International

In countries affected by conflict and war, women for women international (women for women) supports the most marginalized women to earn and save money, improve health and well-being, influence decisions in their home and community, and…

International
4
Women Achieving Success
Employment
5
Her Next Steps
Human Services
6
Fresh Start Women's Foundation

The mission of fresh start women's foundation is to provide access and resources that help women achieve self-sufficiency and use their strength to thrive. we do this work in pursuit of our vision to create unlimited opportunities for…

Human Services
7
Latinas Usa
Community Improvement
8
Latinos in Virginia Empowerment Center

Provide education, advocacy, and support to spanish speaking individuals affected by violence and injustice in virginia to ensure that they can access services to empower them to become happy, healthy, and self- sufficient.

Crime & Legal
9
Direct Action for Women Now World-Wide Inc Formerly Indias Daughters Inc
Philanthropy
10
Olas Foundation

Olas Foundation's primary exempt purpose is to support women in an at-risk community in Guatemala City (Zones 3 and 7) as conversational Spanish tutors through training, holistic support, and connection to students and educational…

Education
11
Womens Empowerment International

Womens Empowerment funds econcomic empowerment programs including small business loans, training, education, and other vital poverty alleviation strategies for women experiencing poverty. More on Schedule O.

International
12
Women Empowering Women
Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Women's Center of Tarrant County Inc; the most unlike its peers is International Rescue Committee 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 9 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SCHWAB CHARITABLE FUND: $216,997 · OtherSCHWAB CHARITABLE FUNDTHE LADDER ALLIANCE: $12,600 · OtherTHE LADDER ALLIANCE+1 more: $6,500 · OtherAMIGOS DE SANTA CRUZ FOUNDATION: $12,500 · EducationHISPANIC SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS: $8,600 · EducationTHE WOMEN'S CENTER OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $20,000 · HealthInternational Rescue Committee INC: $7,500 · InternationalINTERFAITH FAMILY SERVICES: $5,000 · Human ServicesDRESS FOR SUCCESS AUSTIN: $2,000 · Community Improvement
Other$236,097Education$21,100Health$20,000International$7,500Human Services$5,000Community Improvement$2,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE WOMEN'S CENTER OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTHE LADDER ALLIANCE: $12,600 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetAMIGOS DE SANTA CRUZ FOUNDATION: $12,500 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetHISPANIC SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS: $8,600 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNAMASTE FOUNDATION: $6,500 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetINTERFAITH FAMILY SERVICES: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDRESS FOR SUCCESS AUSTIN: $2,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO6.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Boulware Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Boulware Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 9 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Boulware’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