Skip to content
Ethel & Raymond F Rice Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ethel & Raymond F Rice Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
30
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$120k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Education$1.4MHealth$1.2MHuman Services$1.1MYouth Development$846kArts & Culture$782kHousing & Shelter$427kEmployment$378kFood & Nutrition$339kOther$0
02FY2025 · 30 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k21 grants · $451k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $593k
$25,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$24M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DOUGLAS CO VISITING NURSES$120,000
DWAYNE PEASLEE TECH TRAINING CENTER$100,000
BALLARD COMMUNITY CENTER$75,000
BERT NASH HEALTH CENTER$68,000
UNITED WAY OF KAW VALLEY$60,000
BOYS GIRLS CLUB$60,000
VAN GO MOBILE ARTS INC$60,000
PINEY WOODS SCHOOL$50,000
LAWRENCE MEALS ON WHEELS INC$35,250
DOUGLAS CO HISTORICAL SOCIETY$34,920
LAWRENCE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$30,000
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS$25,000
LAWRENCE HUMANE SOCIETY$25,000
FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE$25,000
JUST FOOD$25,000
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, $175k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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%FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE: $25k → 15%FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE: $25k → 15%READY FOR GOOD CO: $20k → 15%FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE: $18k → 15%FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE: $15k → 15%FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE: $15k → 15%FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE: $15k → 15%FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE: $15k → 15%FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE: $15k → 15%FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE: $12k → 15%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.0M · 39 repeat orgs$327k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +22% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

39 repeat relationships: 27 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

39
16

Total granted

$7.0M
$289k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+22%
+10%

Still filing today

46%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k 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
EducationArts & CultureAnimalsHuman ServicesHousing & ShelterHealthOther
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

  • EB
    ELIZABETH BALLARD COMMUNITY CENTER INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $320k · revenue +66%
  • TD
    The Dwayne Peaslee Technical Training Center Inc
    4× · 2017–2025 · $265k · revenue +106%
  • LM
    LAWRENCE MEALS ON WHEELS INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $239k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • LC
    LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SHELTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue +140%
  • BU
    BAKER UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue +9%
  • JA
    JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF KANSAS INC
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +1%
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
Lawrence Farmers Market

The mission of the Lawrence Farmers Market is to provide children and adults in the Lawrence, KS area, with locally grown foods and farm products. This will be accomplished by improving access to local, healthy, affordable food through a…

Religion
2
Economic Development Corporation of Lawrence and Douglas County

Economic prosperity through leadership, advocacy and investment in Douglas County.

—
3
Lawrenceville Corporation

To act as a catalyst and conduit for responsible growth and reinvestment in the lawrenceville community.

Community Improvement
4
Explore Lawrence Inc

To broadly market the area as a year round visitor destination, thereby positively impacting the region's economy by retaining and attracting visitors to the city of lawrence and douglas county, kansas.

Community Improvement
5
Chamber of Commerce of Lawrence Kansas

Promote growth and economic prosperity by serving as the leading business advocate, cultivating leadership and facilitating connectivity.

—
6
Lawrence County Humane Society

None

Animals
7
North Central Kansas Housing Opportunities Inc
Community Improvement
8
Lawrence Partnership Inc

The Lawrence Partnership believes the strongest economy is one that benefits the whole community. One where local businesses compete in regional and global markets; where local service providers meet the needs of their community; where the…

Community Improvement
9
Lawrenceville Cooperative Ministry Inc

Provide emergency food and financial assistance to needy families.

Human Services
10
United Way of Lawrence County

Provides community leadership to address social service issues that are pressing in our area and conducts community-wide fundraising efforts to address these impact programs.

Philanthropy
11
Lawrence School

Teach students using diverse learning strategies, ignite their potential and inspire academic, personal and social success

—
12
Greater Kc Linc Inc

To provide leadership and influence to engage the kansas city, missouri community as well as the surrounding communities in creating the best service delivery system to support and strengthen children, families and individuals, holding…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Douglas County Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Piney Woods School. 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

32 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. 32 of the 60 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
31/32
Grantees still filing
22/32
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KU SCHOOL OF LAW: $922,000 · OtherKU SCHOOL OF LAWDOUGLAS CO VISITING NURSES: $820,000 · OtherDOUGLAS CO VISITING NURSESBERT NASH HEALTH CENTER: $456,624 · OtherBERT NASH HEALTH CENTERELIZABETH BALLARD COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $320,000 · OtherELIZABETH BALLARD COMMUNITY CENTER INCUNITED WAY OF DG COUNTY: $255,000 · OtherDOUGLAS CO HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $245,663 · OtherBOYS GIRLS CLUB: $241,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $184,000 · Other+33 more: $1,917,977 · Other+33 moreVAN GO INC: $341,000 · EducationVAN GO INCThe Dwayne Peaslee Technical Training Center Inc: $265,000 · EducationThe Dwayne Pe…Piney Woods School: $205,000 · EducationPiney Woods S…BAKER UNIVERSITY: $50,000 · EducationBAKER UNIVERS…+2 more: $21,000 · EducationLAWRENCE ARTS CENTER INC: $196,500 · Arts & CultureLAWRENCE CHILDREN'S CHOIR INC: $121,000 · Arts & CultureLAWRENCE CITY BAND INC: $82,000 · Arts & CultureMID AMERICA PERFORMING ARTS ALLIANC: $27,960 · Arts & Culture+1 more: $5,000 · Arts & CultureLAWRENCE MEALS ON WHEELS INC: $238,500 · Food & NutritionLAWRENCE HUMANE SOCIETY: $218,000 · Animals+1 more: $300 · AnimalsUNITED WAY OF KAW VALLEY INC: $175,000 · PhilanthropyDOUGLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $20,000 · PhilanthropyClaires Community Inc: $14,000 · PhilanthropyLAWRENCE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $140,000 · Housing & ShelterLAWRENCE COMMUNITY SHELTER INC: $50,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$5,362,264Education$882,000Arts & Culture$432,460Food & Nutrition$238,500Animals$218,300Philanthropy$209,000Housing & Shelter$190,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVAN GO INC: $341,000 over 9y, 5.7% of budgetELIZABETH BALLARD COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $320,000 over 5y, 6.9% of budgetThe Dwayne Peaslee Technical Training Center Inc: $265,000 over 4y, 5.8% of budgetLAWRENCE MEALS ON WHEELS INC: $238,500 over 9y, 9.3% of budgetLAWRENCE HUMANE SOCIETY: $218,000 over 8y, 2.3% of budgetPiney Woods School: $205,000 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetLAWRENCE ARTS CENTER INC: $196,500 over 5y, 2.4% of budgetUNITED WAY OF KAW VALLEY INC: $175,000 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetFAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE INC: $155,000 over 9y, 3.4% of budgetLAWRENCE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $140,000 over 5y, 3.6% of budgetLAWRENCE CHILDREN'S CHOIR INC: $121,000 over 9y, 13% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $117,500 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetJUST FOOD OF DOUGLAS COUNTY KS INC: $100,000 over 4y, 1.0% of budgetLMH HEALTH FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetLAWRENCE CITY BAND INC: $82,000 over 9y, 9.2% of budgetThe Willow Domestic Violence Center Inc: $75,577 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetLAWRENCE COMMUNITY SHELTER INC: $50,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetBAKER UNIVERSITY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDCCCA INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF KANSAS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetMID AMERICA PERFORMING ARTS ALLIANC: $27,960 over 2y, 17% of budgetDOUGLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetHEADQUARTERS KANSAS INC: $20,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetClaires Community Inc: $14,000 over 1y, 9.5% of budgetDouglas County Legal Aid Society Inc: $12,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetSHELTER INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHEATRE LAWRENCE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetLawrence Schools Foundation: $3,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDENVER ZOOLOGICAL FOUNDATION: $300 over 1y, 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 VAN GO INC ↗
  • Who funds ELIZABETH BALLARD COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds The Dwayne Peaslee Technical Training Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds LAWRENCE MEALS ON WHEELS INC ↗
  • Who funds LAWRENCE HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds Piney Woods School ↗
  • Who funds LAWRENCE ARTS CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF KAW VALLEY INC ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY PROMISE OF LAWRENCE INC ↗
  • Who funds LAWRENCE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ↗
  • Who funds LAWRENCE CHILDREN'S CHOIR INC ↗
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds JUST FOOD OF DOUGLAS COUNTY KS INC ↗
  • Who funds LMH HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LAWRENCE CITY BAND INC ↗
  • Who funds The Willow Domestic Violence Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SHELTER INC ↗
  • Who funds BAKER UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds DCCCA INC ↗
  • Who funds JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF KANSAS INC ↗
  • Who funds MID AMERICA PERFORMING ARTS ALLIANC ↗

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.

Douglas County Commun…Midcontinent Foundati…Kansas Health Foundat…Kriz Charitable Fund …Commerce Bancshares F…Greater Kansas City C…Topeka Community Foun…ASSISTS FOUNDATION co…United Way of Douglas…The Sunderland Founda…The Shumaker Family F…The Rotary Club of La…
Douglas County Community FoundationKS63.6× affinity28 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Douglas County Community Foundation · Midcontinent Foundation · Kansas Health Foundation · Kriz Charitable Fund Inc · Commerce Bancshares Foundation · Greater Kansas City Community Foundation · Topeka Community Foundation · ASSISTS FOUNDATION co KANSAS BASKETBALL OFFICE · United Way of Douglas County Inc · The Sunderland Foundation · The Shumaker Family Foundation · The Rotary Club of Lawrence Inc

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 Ethel & Raymond F Rice Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ethel & Raymond F Rice Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    16report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 60 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 Ethel & Raymond F Rice’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