· Public charity
Crazy Love Ministries
CRAZY LOVE MINISTRIES exists to challenge believers in their faith and to catalyze individuals, churches, and other groups into an authentic and courageous faith in jesus christ that is demonstrated by action.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 5 grants below total $392,326 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $407,382 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $15,056 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k3 grants · $67k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $326k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THESS BAR | $206,665 |
| WE ARE CHURCH | $118,861 |
| KARDIA MINISTRIES | $31,200 |
| BRIDGING NATIONS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES | $25,000 |
| VILLAGE LIFE | $10,600 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY20–21, $83k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +3% since the first grant, against -8% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 11% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $351k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- BTBASIL TECHNOLOGIES INC6× · 2018–2023 · $857k · revenue +640% · 90% of their budget
- TCTHE CHOSEN & DEARLY LOVED FOUNDATION2× · 2020–2021 · $83k · revenue +36%
- HFHEART FOR GOD2× · 2021–2022 · $24k · revenue +13%
Funded once
- GFGOSPEL FOR ASIA INCone grant, 2021 · $100k
- MRMILLENNIUM RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INCone grant, 2023 · $91k · revenue -8%
- PSPillar Seminaryone grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +3%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To produce and publish training materials for church leadership and development. To facilitate churches groups and individual participation in world mission.
Conducted religious meetings, leadership development & humanitarian relief activities in Europe, Africa, and Asia.
To spread the Gospel of Jesus the Christ
train disciple and equip the believer to exercise God given authority in the earth to transform communities and societie for Jesus
Ministry
Religious
Heart Bridge International exists to equip and empower Christians around the world to fulfill the Great Commission. The organization provides free ministry training, discipleship resources, and practical coaching to under-resourced…
Equipping Network is a non-profit ministry which will train underservedShepherds in Biblical principles of ministry and family.
Religious
Kingdom Investment works among the poor and oppressed to bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God that results in holistic transformation through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Our mission is proclaiming the message of salvation through the saving power of the Holy Spirit to reach the unreached by evangelizing; motivating, mobilizing and organizing the body of Christ.
Education, Humanitarian, Community outreach and evangelism ministry. Provide Orphan Care, Train Youth in Career Paths, Train Pastors and Others in Bible School, Prison Ministry, Provide Elementary School for about 300 Children
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Basil Technologies Inc and the most unlike its peers is Nutrition and Education International. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 15 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 20% of your grantees by number, and just 50% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 21 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds BASIL TECHNOLOGIES INC ↗
- Who funds THESS BAR ↗
- Who funds Kardia ↗
- Who funds VILLAGE LIFE ↗
- Who funds NEW LIFE DREAM CENTER ↗
- Who funds NUTRITION AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds SPORTS EXCELLENCE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds MILLENNIUM RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds THE CHOSEN & DEARLY LOVED FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Pillar Seminary ↗
- Who funds BRIDGING NATIONS INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds HEART FOR GOD ↗
- Who funds KEEP THE FAITH CORP ↗
- Who funds THE WAY CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds UNDERGROUND NETWORK INCORPORATED ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Christian Community Foundation Inc · Servant Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Crazy Love Ministries funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Crazy Love Ministries?
Find your warmest path to Crazy Love Ministries 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.