· Private foundation
David J and Anita Powell 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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 88% of DAVID J AND ANITA POWELL FAMILY FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CEF MO CHILD EVANGELISM FELLOWSHIP | $7,000 |
| CEF OF SO CALIF INC SAN DIEGO CHAP | $4,000 |
| GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES O | $2,000 |
| THE NAVIGATORS | $1,500 |
| THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE | $1,000 |
| AFA - AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION | $1,000 |
| NOVO MISSION INC | $1,000 |
| CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA | $900 |
| WARRIORS FOR CHRIST | $600 |
| MARIO MURILLO MINISTRIES | $500 |
| FCA FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETE | $500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $500 |
| LES FELDICK MINISTRY THROUGH THE BI | $500 |
| THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION THF | $300 |
| ACLJ - AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW JUST | $300 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 49% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +4% since the first grant, against -15% for the ones you funded once.
41 repeat relationships — 31 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 5 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, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k 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
- TRTHE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE4× · 2021–2024 · $4k · revenue +54%
- CWCONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA3× · 2021–2024 · $1k · revenue +59%
- TCThe Charis Project3× · 2021–2023 · $1k · revenue +4%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $500
- JMJOYCE MEYER MINISTRIES INCone grant, 2021 · $200
- FRFAMILY RESEARCHone grant, 2022 · $200
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.
Christianity Today is a global community inspired by evangelical conviction to advance the stories and ideas of the kingdom of God. Our mission is to elevate the storytellers and sages of the global church.
Alpha and Omega Ministries seeks to provide a faithful and accurate response to the many challenges presented to the Christian Church in the modern world. Based firmly upon an unflinching commitment to the Bible as the Word of God and to…
Bible Thinker, Inc is a ministry dedicated to equipping people to think and live biblically. There are three main areas of teaching that we focus on:1. Teaching accurate theology based on exegeting the text of the Bible and confronting…
AUL is an organization that advances the human right to life in culture, law, and policy.
Freedom seekers international is a christian organization that exists to rescue the most severely persecuted for their religious faith in hostile and restrictive countries. through collaborative partnerships we deliver those who are…
To glorify god by equipping the church with proper christian doctrine and to help non-believers come to a saving knowledge of jesus christ.
To present the gospel by providing life-long opportunities to integrate faith and learning through balanced, biblically based scholarship, training people to love god by renewing their minds and equipping the church to engage the world for…
Proclaim the gospel worldwide, prepare followers of jesus christ, and propel those into their god given destiny.
Pro-Life Action Ministries, Inc. is an interdenominational Christian organization dedicated to publicly defending the sanctity of human life & saving lives from abortion, infanticide & euthanasia through peaceful direct-action & education…
Passionlife ministries is a global missions initiative to spread the gospel of life and expand the pregnancy help movement among nations plagued by abortion, infanticide and gendercide.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Judicial Watch Inc and the most unlike its peers is Abortion Survivors Network Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 51 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 THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA ↗
- Who funds The Charis Project ↗
- Who funds And Then There Were None ↗
- Who funds ABORTION SURVIVORS NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds 40 DAYS FOR LIFE ↗
- Who funds PSYCHOHERESY AWARENESS MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds PARENTS TELEVISION COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds ANSWERS IN GENESIS INC ↗
- Who funds OPEN DOORS INC ↗
- Who funds REFORM AMERICA ↗
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: Servant Foundation · Christian Community Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 David J and Anita Powell Family 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.
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 David J and Anita Powell Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to David J and Anita Powell 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.