Skip to content

· Private foundation

Crow William L Charitable Trust

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.

$147k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$43k
Largest
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$297kHuman Services$256kPhilanthropy$256kHealth$62kReligion$51kPublic Safety & Disaster$39kAnimals$21kHousing & Shelter$13kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $31k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $116k
$7,368
Median grant
2
States reached
$92k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY$42,734
UNITED WAY OF THE PLAINS INC$36,840
THE SALVATION ARMY$36,840
UNION RESCUE MISSION OF WICHITA INC$7,368
HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC$7,368
FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH$7,368
Individual grant recipient$4,421
SEDGWICK COUNTY ZOO$2,947
HEARTSPRING INC$1,474
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 (FY17–25, $51k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC: $7k → 16%HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC: $7k → 16%HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC: $7k → 16%HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC: $6k → 16%HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC: $6k → 16%HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC: $6k → 16%HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC: $5k → 16%HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC: $5k → 16%HARRY HYNES MEMORIAL HOSPICE INC: $3k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 10 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
0

Total granted

$1.0M
$0

Still filing today

30%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
PhilanthropyHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • UW
    UNITED WAY OF THE PLAINS INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $256k · revenue +13%
  • HH
    Harry Hynes Memorial Hospice Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $51k · revenue +16%
  • HI
    HEARTSPRING INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $10k · revenue +30%

Funded once

    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
    04the grantee network

    3 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. 3 of the 10 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)
    3/3
    Grantees still filing
    3/3
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    PITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY: $297,475 · OtherPITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITYTHE SALVATION ARMY: $193,661 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYSALVATION ARMY: $62,784 · OtherSALVATION ARMYUNION RESCUE MISSION OF WICHITA INC: $51,288 · OtherUNION RESCUE MISSION OF WICHITA INCFIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $51,288 · OtherFIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCHIndividual grant recipient: $30,774 · Other+1 more: $20,515 · OtherUNITED WAY OF THE PLAINS INC: $256,445 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF THE PLAINS INCHarry Hynes Memorial Hospice Inc: $51,288 · Human ServicesHEARTSPRING INC: $10,259 · Health
    Other$707,785Philanthropy$256,445Human Services$51,288Health$10,259

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

    25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNITED WAY OF THE PLAINS INC: $256,445 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetHarry Hynes Memorial Hospice Inc: $51,288 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetHEARTSPRING INC: $10,259 over 9y, 0.0% 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.

    • Who funds UNITED WAY OF THE PLAINS INC ↗
    • Who funds Harry Hynes Memorial Hospice Inc ↗
    • Who funds HEARTSPRING INC ↗

    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.

    Goebel Family-Star Lumber Charitable TrustKS13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Goebel Family-Star Lumber Charitable Trust · Berry Foundation Inc · Textron Charitable Trust Dtd 122353 · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

    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 Crow William L Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Crow William L Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
      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 10 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 Crow William L’s filings →

      More from the funding graph