Skip to content
David T Mason Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

David T Mason Charitable 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.

$3k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$3k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Arts & Culture$102kHuman Services$99kEducation$64kFood & Nutrition$57kCommunity Improvement$40kEmployment$24kAnimals$20kPhilanthropy$15kOther$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,550
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MISCELLANEOUS CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS (FROM MASON COLOR WORKS K-1)$2,550
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 (FY22–22, $17k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%THE FISH INC: $17k → 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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$304k · 8 repeat orgs$152k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +23% since the first grant, against +11% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
15

Total granted

$304k
$152k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+23%
+11%

Still filing today

38%
47%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
Arts & CultureEducationCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesAnimalsPhilanthropyOther
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

  • MO
    MUSEUM OF CERAMICS FOUNDATION
    4× · 2017–2022 · $75k · revenue +23%
  • TS
    THE SALVATION ARMY
    5× · 2017–2022 · $65k
  • FO
    FISH OF EAST LIVERPOOL
    4× · 2017–2021 · $57k

Funded once

  • EL
    EAST LIVERPOOL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +468%
  • EL
    EAST LIVERPOOL AREA YMCA
    one grant, 2019 · $18k
  • TF
    THE FISH INC
    one grant, 2022 · $17k · revenue -2% · 33% of their budget
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
Middleburg Heights Historical Society

Non profit historical society

Arts & Culture
2
Canfield Heritage Foundation

Museum

Arts & Culture
3
Smithville Community Historical Society Inc

To collect and preserve any and all historic materials books artifacts machinery etc.

Arts & Culture
4
Elizabeth Twp Historical Society

Society formed for the preservation of history of Elizabeth Township.

—
5
East Windsor Historical Society Inc
—
6
Fredericktown Area Historical Society

Historical society for fredericktown ohio

Arts & Culture
7
Hamilton County Historical Society

To educate the public about the history of hamilton county, indiana and to preserve historic structures in hamlton county, indiana

—
8
Northwest Ohio Railroad Preservation Inc

Preservation and restoration of railroad items to educate the public on railroad history

Arts & Culture
9
Turlock Historical Society

To preserve and share turlock history

Arts & Culture
10
East Liverpool Area Youth Baseball

Youth baseball league ages 4-14

Recreation & Sports
11
Anderson Twp Historical Society Inc
—
12
Lake County Historical Society

Historical museum

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is East Liverpool Fawcett Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Friends of Beaver Creek State. 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

12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 24 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE SALVATION ARMY: $64,500 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYFISH OF EAST LIVERPOOL: $56,500 · OtherFISH OF EAST LIVERPOOLMISCELLANEOUS CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS (FROM MASON COLOR WORKS K-1): $24,412 · OtherMISCELLANEOUS CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS (FROM MASON COLOR WORKS K…KENT STATE UNIVERSITY - EAST LIVERPOOL CAMPUS: $20,500 · OtherKENT STATE UNIVERSITY - EAST LIVERPOOL CAMPUSEAST LIVERPOOL AREA YMCA: $17,500 · OtherEAST LIVERPOOL AREA YMCACITY OF EAST LIVERPOOL: $15,000 · OtherCITY OF EAST LIVERPOOLEAST LIVERPOOL FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE LODGE 29: $10,000 · OtherST STEPHENS EPISCOPAL CHURCH: $10,000 · Other+7 more: $43,000 · Other+7 moreMUSEUM OF CERAMICS FOUNDATION: $74,750 · Arts & CultureMUSEUM OF CERAMICS FOUN…FRIENDS OF BEAVER CREEK STATE: $19,000 · Arts & CultureFRIENDS OF BEAVER CREEK…+1 more: $950 · Arts & CultureTRI-STATE AREA TUITION MISSION FOUNDATION: $34,500 · EducationEAST LIVERPOOL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP: $25,000 · Community ImprovementTHE FISH INC: $17,000 · Human ServicesROTARY CHARITIES OF SOUTHERN COLUMBIANA COUNTY: $8,170 · PhilanthropyEAST LIVERPOOL FAWCETT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $7,000 · PhilanthropySALEM HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $15,000 · Animals
Other$261,412Arts & Culture$94,700Education$34,500Community Improvement$25,000Human Services$17,000Philanthropy$15,170Animals$15,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMUSEUM OF CERAMICS FOUNDATION: $74,750 over 4y, 16% of budgetTRI-STATE AREA TUITION MISSION FOUNDATION: $34,500 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetEAST LIVERPOOL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP: $25,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetFRIENDS OF BEAVER CREEK STATE: $19,000 over 3y, 52% of budgetTHE FISH INC: $17,000 over 1y, 33% of budgetSALEM HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $15,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetROTARY CHARITIES OF SOUTHERN COLUMBIANA COUNTY: $8,170 over 1y, 29% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS OHIO INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEAST LIVERPOOL HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $8,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetEAST LIVERPOOL FAWCETT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $7,000 over 1y, 7.1% of budgetTRI-STATE CHAPLAINCY COMMITTEE: $1,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetLOUHOLTZ UPPER OHIO VALLEY HALL OF FAME FOUNDATION INC: $950 over 1y, 0.4% 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 MUSEUM OF CERAMICS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TRI-STATE AREA TUITION MISSION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds EAST LIVERPOOL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF BEAVER CREEK STATE ↗
  • Who funds THE FISH INC ↗
  • Who funds SALEM HUMANE SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds ROTARY CHARITIES OF SOUTHERN COLUMBIANA COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS OHIO INC ↗
  • Who funds EAST LIVERPOOL HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds EAST LIVERPOOL FAWCETT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TRI-STATE CHAPLAINCY COMMITTEE ↗
  • Who funds LOUHOLTZ UPPER OHIO VALLEY HALL OF FAME FOUNDATION 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Hancock County Saving…
Hancock County Savings Charitable FoundationWV13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hancock County Savings Charitable 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 David T Mason Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from David T Mason Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to David T Mason Charitable Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to David T Mason Charitable 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.

    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 24 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on David T Mason’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