Skip to content
Charlotte M Foukal Charitable Trust Xxxxx1003 at a glance

· Private foundation

Charlotte M Foukal Charitable Trust Xxxxx1003

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.

$20k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2018 to 2025.

Animals$101kPhilanthropy$49kHuman Services$21k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$19,654
Median grant
1
States reached
$642k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Ark Cat Sanctuary$19,654
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ARIZONA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 11%EQUINE EMERGENCY EVACUATION OF: $11k → 14%HUMANE SOCIETY OF YUMA INC: $6k → 15%DESERT CAT RESCUE & SANCTUARY OF ARIZONA: $6k → 15%TUBA CITY HUMANE SOCIETY: $25k → 16%FRIENDS OF BISBEE ANIMAL SHELTER: $6k → 18%ARIZONA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $24k → 11%YAVAPAI HUMANE SOCIETY: $8k → 14%HIGH COUNTRY HUMANE CHARITABLE: $8k → 16%TWO PUPS WELLNESS FUND: $10k → 11%Ark Cat Sanctuary: $20k → 16%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 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
Humane Society of Southern Arizona

To compassionately serve pets and the people who love them.

Animals
2
Yavapai Humane Trappers Animal Search

Animal search and rescue, vetting, rehome and placement of unwanted and abandoned pets, primarily in northern arizona.sponsors a foster pet program and overpopulation program of spay and neuter.

Animals
3
Barstow Humane Society

Animal Care for Barstow Area

—
4
Animal Village Nm

Saving animals from euthanasia, resulting in healthy pets being adopted.

Animals
5
Humane Society of Sedona Inc

The Organizations mission is to care for and shelter, as well as to provide placement services for, lost and/or abandoned small animals in the Sedona, Arizona area. The Organization also provides a spay/neuter program to control pet…

Animals
6
Ark-Valley Humane Society Inc

Ark-Valley Humane Society's (AVHS) Mission is ensuring the welfare of companion animals through compassion and care. AVHS operated an open-admission animal shelter for Chaffee County, Colorado.

Animals
7
The Humane Society of Austin & Travis County Inc

The austin humane society (ahs) offers comprehensive, humane, life-saving animal services, transforming the lives of animals and those who love them. because we believe homeless animals deserve a chance to thrive in a loving environment,…

Animals
8
Beaverhead Animal Shelter

The mission is to protect and care for homeless animals in the Dillon and Beaverhead county area.

Animals
9
Emerald City Pet Rescue
Animals
10
Angies Dog House

We are dedicated to rescuig animals left homeless for whatever reason, animals in public shelters where they are at high risk of euthanasia, animals given up by their owners because of difficult circumstances, and those in danger of abuse…

Animals
11
Heber Springs Humane Society

Local humane society animal shelter and animal rescue.

Animals
12
Alliance for Arizona Animal Protection

Prevention of animal cruelty and intervention on behalf of animals being abused.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Humane Society of Yuma; the most unlike its peers is The Miss Foundation Mothers in Sympathy & Support. 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TUBA CITY HUMANE SOCIETY INCORPORATED: $25,176 · AnimalsTUBA CITY HUMANE SOCIETY INCORPORATEDTHE ARK CAT SANCTUARY INC: $19,654 · AnimalsTHE ARK CAT SANCTUARY INCTWO PUPS WELLNESS FUND: $9,845 · AnimalsTWO PUPS WELLNESS FUNDYAVAPAI HUMANE SOCIETY: $8,476 · AnimalsYAVAPAI HUMANE SOCIETYHUMANE SOCIETY OF YUMA: $6,318 · AnimalsHUMANE SOCIETY OF YUMAFriends of Bisbee Animal Shelter: $6,318 · AnimalsFriends of Bisbee Animal ShelterARIZONA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $49,344 · PhilanthropyARIZONA COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONEQUINE EMERGENCY EVACUATION OF: $10,884 · OtherEQUINE EMERGENCY…HIGH COUNTRY HUMANE CHARITABLE: $8,476 · OtherHIGH COUNTRY HUM…DESERT CAT RESCUE & SANCTUARY OF ARIZONA: $6,318 · OtherDESERT CAT RESCU…The MISS Foundation Mothers in Sympathy & Support: $20,729 · Human ServicesThe MISS Foun…
Animals$75,787Philanthropy$49,344Other$25,678Human Services$20,729

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 budgetARIZONA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $49,344 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTUBA CITY HUMANE SOCIETY INCORPORATED: $25,176 over 1y, 15% of budgetThe MISS Foundation Mothers in Sympathy & Support: $20,729 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetTWO PUPS WELLNESS FUND: $9,845 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetYAVAPAI HUMANE SOCIETY: $8,476 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF YUMA: $6,318 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFriends of Bisbee Animal Shelter: $6,318 over 1y, 3.5% 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.

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.

Arizona Community Fou…Paypal Charitable Giv…Network for GoodAmazonsmile Foundation
Arizona Community FoundationAZ19.2× affinity7 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Arizona Community Foundation · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Network for Good · 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 Charlotte M Foukal Charitable Trust Xxxxx1003 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Charlotte M Foukal Charitable Trust Xxxxx1003. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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
    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 · 0–5%
    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 Charlotte M Foukal Charitable Trust Xxxxx1003’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