· Public charity
Crewe Endowment Foundation
Operates exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, and/or carry out the purposes of crewe foundation, a utah nonprofit organization, which is exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2022–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k5 grants · $36k
- $10k–50k26 grants · $429k
- $50k–250k14 grants · $1.2M
- $250k+4 grants · $14M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF | $6,961,681 |
| BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV - BYU ATHL | $4,600,000 |
| FOR OTHERS | $1,900,000 |
| CREWE FOUNDATION | $759,300 |
| WASATCH EDUCATION FOUNDATION | $150,000 |
| RISE AND REBUILD FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| FRIENDS OF CASA DE HOGAR | $100,000 |
| THE COACHES TEAM FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| MENTORS INTERNATIONAL | $100,000 |
| AYUDA EN MEXICO INC | $100,000 |
| ESPECIALLY FOR ATHLETES INC | $100,000 |
| OTHER SIDE VILLAGE | $90,000 |
| NPH USA | $82,000 |
| SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERISTY FOUN | $60,000 |
| PACHAMAMA ALLIANCE | $55,000 |
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 (FY23–24, $2.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 5%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 7% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +28% since the first grant, against -76% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 37 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, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.3M 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
- FOFOR OTHERS COLLECTIVE INC2× · 2023–2024 · $2.3M · revenue +33%
- CFCREWE FOUNDATION3× · 2022–2024 · $999k · revenue +633% · 84% of their budget
- MIMentors International2× · 2023–2024 · $200k · revenue +55%
Funded once
- ECELEVATE CHARITIESone grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue -76%
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.
Funding solar energy solutions, building capacity, and amplifying local leadership for those experiencing the greatest impacts from climate change, economic instability, and social injustice.
We are utah's partner in philanthropy, pioneering innovation and collaboration to invest in our community today for a brighter tomorrow.
USA for UNHCR protects and supports refugees by mobilizing resources, elevating awareness, and driving action through a network of engaged supporters.
We help families experiencing homelessness find lasting independence and security.
Rise against hunger, inc. is an international hunger relief non-profit organization that is driven by a vision of a world without hunger and a mission to end hunger in our lifetime. rise against hunger distributes food and other…
The mission of the University of Western States is to advance the science and art of integrated health care through excellence in education and patient care.
Heal utah's mission is to protect utah's environment and its people by promoting clean air, clean energy, and comprehensive solutions to radioactive and toxic waste.
SaltExchange is a national community of philanthropists united by a shared mission to work collectively to address some of the world's most urgent and complex challenges. We equip donors with the data, tools, and strategic partnerships…
Utah Humanities collaborates with libraries, museums, historical societies, schools, colleges, and cultural and civic groups; provides capacity-building opportunities for volunteers and professionals in the cultural sector; presents…
Our mission is to engage with communities and catalyze private, public, and philanthropic partnerships to remedy opportunity gaps in economic opportunity, education, health, and housing in Utah.
Utah foundation's mission is to produce objective, thorough and well- reasoned research and analysis that promotes the effective use of public resources, a thriving economy, a well-prepared workforce and a high quality of life for utahns.…
To help people clear their criminal records and access opportunities. we will do this by: 1) spreading the word about utah's clean slate law to individuals with records, so they are aware of the law and its positive impact on their lives;…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of the Orphans D/B/a Nph-Usa and the most unlike its peers is Spinehope Fka Spinal Deformity Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 32 years old; the field is 11. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 29% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 10% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% 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.
41 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. 41 of the 50 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 FOR OTHERS COLLECTIVE INC ↗
- Who funds CREWE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WASATCH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUN ↗
- Who funds Mentors International ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ORPHANS D/B/A NPH-USA ↗
- Who funds The Other Side Academy ↗
- Who funds ELEVATE CHARITIES ↗
- Who funds THE COACHES TEAM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ESPECIALLY FOR ATHLETES INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF CASA HOGAR ↗
- Who funds Rise and Rebuild Foundation ↗
- Who funds The Pachamama Alliance ↗
- Who funds SHELTERBOX USA INC ↗
- Who funds Vanderbilt University ↗
- Who funds Autism Learning Foundation ↗
- Who funds UTAH FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds NCGA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Oregon State University Foundation ↗
- Who funds CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF WESTERN WASHINGTON ↗
- Who funds CELESTIAL ZOO PET RESCUE ↗
- Who funds WASATCH ADAPTIVE SPORTS INC ↗
- Who funds MINISTERIO RENACER EN CRISTO ↗
- Who funds UTAH REFUGEE CONNECTION ↗
- Who funds SPINEHOPE FKA SPINAL DEFORMITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds WILL HARDY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROAM HUMANITARIAN ↗
- Who funds FRANKLIN & MARSHALL COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds EQUALITY UTAH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HAWAII COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR HUMANITARIAN OUTREACH AND INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds Cristo Rey Jesuit Seattle High School ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE COALITION FKA FOOD & CARE COALITION OF UTAH VALLEY ↗
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: The Community Foundation of Utah · Sorenson Legacy Foundation · Larry H Miller and Gail Miller Family Foundation · University Impact · Dominion Energy Charitable Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · James Lee Sorenson Family Foundation · Willard L Eccles Charitable Foundation · Cross Charitable Foundation Attn John R Clark · American Endowment Foundation · George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · doTERRA Healing Hands 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 Crewe Endowment Foundation 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.
- Oregon State University Foundation — 0% of income from government
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 Crewe Endowment Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Crewe Endowment 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.