Skip to content
Continuing to Serve Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Continuing to Serve Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$290k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$75k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0180% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

Philanthropy$175kHuman Services$100kEmployment$100kArts & Culture$15kPublic Benefit$10kHealth$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $150k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $125k
$25,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$7.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WARRIOR RISING$75,000
AMERICAN CORPORATE PARTNERS (ACP)$50,000
Individual grant recipient$40,000
VETERANS COLLABORATIVE$25,000
DOG TAG BAKERY$25,000
USO$25,000
WOMEN VETERANS INTERACTIVE FOUNDATION$15,000
PRITZKER MILITARY MUSEUM & LIBRARY$10,000
WOMEN IN MILITARY SERVICE FOR AMERICAN MEMORIAL FOUNDATION INC$10,000
EASTER SEALS$5,000
PROJECT HEALING WATERS$5,000
THE FILM COLLABORATIVE (FIGHT TO FIGHT)$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 (FY24–25, $100k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%AMERICAN CORPORATE PARTNERS (ACP): $50k → 17%American Corporate Partners (ACP): $50k → 17%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
NY
CA
UT
CO
VA
MD
DC
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.

64%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$320k · 3 repeat orgs$180k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
2

Total granted

$320k
$30k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $150k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
Public BenefitPhilanthropyHuman ServicesEmploymentHealthOther
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

  • WR
    Warrior Rising
    3× · 2023–2025 · $175k · revenue +22%
  • AMERICAN CORPORATE PARTNERS
    2× · 2024–2025 · $100k · revenue 0%
  • WV
    WOMEN VETERANS INTERACTIVE FOUNDATION
    4× · 2022–2025 · $45k · revenue -41%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $25k
  • F
    Fubu
    one grant, 2024 · $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
Vetality Corp

Services for veterans

—
2
Womens Influential Network Foundati

Offer mentoring to army women minorities

Civil Rights
3
Transition Skills Training Inc

Training and Supports for Veterans, First Responders and their Families, we specialize in entrepreneurial training but that is not the only kind of support we provide.

Education
4
Veteran Womens Enterprise Center

To empower entrepreneur women associated with the military;inclusive of veterans, active duty, reservists and military spouses, to scale successfully, by establishing strategic alliances, leveraging public/private-sector opportunities,…

Human Services
5
NextOp Inc

NextOp helps place talented enlisted service members and veterans into civilian careers through highly individualized preparation and an array of programming.

Public Benefit
6
Ascending Career Solutions Group Inc

Counseling for veteran issues relationships and career guidance

—
7
Veterans Navigation Network

Transition for service members.

Health
8
Warrior Wellness Program Inc

Warrior Wellness Program, Inc. provides alternative therapies, services and community engagement to combat veterans, active duty military and their spouses. Services are primarily delivered through the five-day Accelerated Wellness Program…

Human Services
9
Military Wellness Initiative
Public Benefit
10
Vets Community Connections

The VCC mission is to assist veterans, military, and their families in successfully integrating into their community by connecting them with local individuals and organizations that can assist them in building thriving lives.

—
11
Warrior Built Foundation Inc

Organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes for combat veterans to provide motivation, camaraderie, and to offer a release to cope with similar difficulties in a positive and therapeutic way. Providing safe, fun, and…

Health
12
Codervets

CoderVets is a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Workforce Development organization offering paid Registered Apprenticeship tech training for eligible military veterans, reservists and family, including family of active duty service-members and fallen…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Easter Seals 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 14 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
1/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Warrior Rising: $175,000 · PhilanthropyWarrior RisingIndividual grant recipient: $40,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUSO: $25,000 · OtherUSOIndividual grant recipient: $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPRITZKER MILITARY MUSEUM & LIBRARY: $10,000 · OtherPRITZKER MILITARY MUSEUM &…EASTER SEALS INC: $5,000 · OtherFubu: $5,000 · OtherTHE FILM COLLABORATIVE (FIGHT TO FIGHT): $5,000 · OtherAMERICAN CORPORATE PARTNERS: $100,000 · Human ServicesAMERICAN CORPORATE PAR…WOMEN VETERANS INTERACTIVE FOUNDATION: $45,000 · Public BenefitWOMEN VETERANS INT…Veterans Collaborative: $25,000 · Public BenefitVeterans Collabora…WOMEN IN MILITARY SERVICE FOR AMERICA MEMORIAL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · Public BenefitWOMEN IN MILITARY …DOG TAG INC: $25,000 · EmploymentPROJECT HEALING WATERS FLY FISHING INC: $5,000 · Health
Philanthropy$175,000Other$115,000Human Services$100,000Public Benefit$80,000Employment$25,000Health$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWarrior Rising: $175,000 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetAMERICAN CORPORATE PARTNERS: $100,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetWOMEN VETERANS INTERACTIVE FOUNDATION: $45,000 over 4y, 7.8% of budgetDOG TAG INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetVeterans Collaborative: $25,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetWOMEN IN MILITARY SERVICE FOR AMERICA MEMORIAL FOUNDATION INC: $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.

Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Network for GoodDC9.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Continuing to Serve Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Continuing to Serve Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 46%
  • Project Healing Waters Fly Fishing Inc: 46% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–60%
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 14 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 Continuing to Serve’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