Skip to content
Clow Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Clow Family 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.

$379k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$199k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Education$1.0MReligion$180kAnimals$150kHealth$145kPhilanthropy$120kHuman Services$80kFood & Nutrition$75kHousing & Shelter$75kOther$0
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $180k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $199k
$20,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$3.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Aurora University$199,000
Grindstone Ministries$40,000
Orchard Village$30,000
Whispering Meadows Ranch$30,000
Bradley Yusim Foundation$20,000
Northshore Foundation$20,000
Dogs for Better Lives$20,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Mooseheart$10,000
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 (FY19–24, $135k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 22% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Whispering Meadows Ranch: $30k → 9%Leader Dogs for the Blind: $25k → 8%Loaves & Fishes: $25k → 7%Orchard Village: $30k → 14%Hesed House: $25k → 8%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

IL
WI
MI
NY
OR
CA
VA
OK
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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 5 repeat orgs$670k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +38% since the first grant, against +29% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
23

Total granted

$1.3M
$550k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+29%

Still filing today

40%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $120k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesAnimalsEducationHealthReligionPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • AURORA UNIVERSITY
    7× · 2018–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +38%
  • NS
    North Shore Foundation
    4× · 2020–2024 · $120k
  • HF
    Habitat for Humanity
    2× · 2019–2020 · $50k

Funded once

  • CF
    Center for Enriched Learning
    one grant, 2023 · $30k
  • PI
    PAWS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue +488%
  • LD
    LEADER DOGS FOR THE BLIND
    one grant, 2019 · $25k · revenue +4%
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
Michigan Humane Society

To improve and save lives through compassionate care, community engagement and advocacy for animals.

Animals
2
Illinois Presbyterian Home

Operate homes for the aged and to conduct charitable and benevolent enterprises

Human Services
3
Humane Animal Partners

Founded in 2023, humane animal partners is a nonprofit no-kill animal care and adoption center. we are committed to providing for the needs of homeless and owned dogs and cats in our community. we make "friends for life" by connecting…

Animals
4
Animal Friends Inc

To rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome animals in crisis, ensure healthy pets through education, advocacy, and affordable services, and inspire a community where the animal-human bond is celebrated and nurtured.

Animals
5
Humane Society of South Mississippi

The mission of the humane society is to save and enhance the lives of pets through cooperative and innovative approaches to adoption, spay/neuter, sheltering and community engagement.

Animals
6
Worldwide Vets Incorporated

Our goal is to sustainably improve animal welfare, provide veterinary care, and improve veterinary education globally. in order to achieve this goal, we work in over 10 countries, across 5 continents, supporting local people and animals,…

Animals
7
Underdog Pet Rescue of Wisconsin Inc

Underdog pet rescue is an all-breed companion animal rescue and vet clinic based out of dane county, wisconsin. our mission is to find permanent homes for animals in need and to enrich lives by strengthening the connection between animals…

Animals
8
Marin Humane Society

Marin humane transforms lives through exceptional animal care, humane education, and advocacy. every day, marin humane inspires compassion and positive relationships between people and animals.

Animals
9
Ingham County Humane Society

Animal shelter and adoption services

Animals
10
Michigan Anti-Cruelty Society

To maintain and operate a hospital, ambulance and veterinary services for the care of animals. the maintenance and operation of kennels and suitable chambers for the humane destruction of wounded animals.

Animals
11
Animal Care Sanctuary

Animal care sanctuary's lifesaving mission as a no kill organization envisions a community that promotes turning compassion into action for companion animals by: 1.) adopting healthy pet companions into loving homes. 2.) promoting the…

Animals
12
Divine Canines

Divine canines therapy encourages smiles and brightens lives. to accomplish this, we recruit and train teams of dogs and their owners and organize and facilitate regular, frequent visits to residents of special care facilities.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Public Action to Deliver Shelter Inc D/B/a Hesed House; the most unlike its peers is University of Chicago Medical Center. 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

17 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. 17 of the 34 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/17
Grantees still filing
12/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AURORA UNIVERSITY: $1,002,544 · EducationAURORA UNIVERSITY+1 more: $25,000 · EducationNorth Shore Foundation: $120,000 · OtherNorth Shore FoundationHabitat for Humanity: $50,000 · OtherHabitat for HumanityBradley Yusim Foundation: $45,000 · OtherBradley Yusim FoundationCenter for Enriched Learning: $30,000 · OtherEdward Foundation: $25,000 · OtherReady Set Ride: $25,000 · OtherRush University Medical: $25,000 · OtherGideons International: $25,000 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMY: $25,000 · OtherLutheran Church: $25,000 · OtherRENKO ANIMAL SHELTER: $25,000 · OtherPACIFIC GARDEN MISSION: $25,000 · OtherLurie Children's Hospital: $25,000 · OtherJONI AND FRIENDS: $25,000 · OtherHome Sweet Home: $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $25,000 · Other+4 more: $35,000 · Other+4 moreWHISPERING MEADOWS RANCH INC: $30,000 · Human ServicesORCHARD VILLAGE: $30,000 · Human ServicesLEADER DOGS FOR THE BLIND: $25,000 · Human ServicesPUBLIC ACTION TO DELIVER SHELTER INC D/B/A HESED HOUSE: $25,000 · Human ServicesLOAVES & FISHES COMMUNITY SERVICES: $25,000 · Human ServicesDOGS FOR THE DEAF INC DBA DOGS FOR BETTER LIVES: $45,000 · AnimalsPAWS INC: $30,000 · AnimalsHOOVED ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY: $25,000 · AnimalsStarfish Animal Rescue: $25,000 · AnimalsGRINDSTONE MINISTRIES INC: $40,000 · Public Safety & DisasterVCY AMERICA INC: $25,000 · ReligionUniversity of Chicago Medical Center: $25,000 · Health
Education$1,027,544Other$580,000Human Services$135,000Animals$125,000Public Safety & Disaster$40,000Religion$25,000Health$25,000

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 budgetAURORA UNIVERSITY: $1,002,544 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetDOGS FOR THE DEAF INC DBA DOGS FOR BETTER LIVES: $45,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetGRINDSTONE MINISTRIES INC: $40,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetWHISPERING MEADOWS RANCH INC: $30,000 over 1y, 8.7% of budgetPAWS INC: $30,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetORCHARD VILLAGE: $30,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLEADER DOGS FOR THE BLIND: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEdward Foundation: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetPUBLIC ACTION TO DELIVER SHELTER INC D/B/A HESED HOUSE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetStarfish Animal Rescue: $25,000 over 1y, 5.6% of budgetUniversity of Chicago Medical Center: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJONI AND FRIENDS: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHRISTIAN LEAGUE FOR THE HANDICAPPED DBA INSPIRATION MINISTRIES: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

AbbVie FoundationJpmorgan Chase Founda…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Renaissance Charitabl…Vanguard Charitable E…American Endowment Fo…Donor Advised Charita…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
AbbVie FoundationIL13.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: AbbVie Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Clow Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Clow Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Whispering Meadows Ranch Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Clow Family Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Clow Family Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 34 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 Clow Family’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