Skip to content

· Private foundation

Ford Albert M Charitable Tw

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.

$25k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Education$29kPhilanthropy$28kCommunity Improvement$27kHuman Services$24kArts & Culture$18kHealth$4kReligion$500Other$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$630k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AFTER SCHOOL DISCOVERY$5,000
SAMARITIAN HOUSE$5,000
CATHOLIC CHARITIES$5,000
CONVERSATION STATION$2,450
CIVIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF$2,000
ASHTABULA ARTS CENTER$2,000
UNITED WAY OF ASHTABULA COUNTY$2,000
SAINT JOHN SCHOOL$1,250
ADAMS ANGELS$300
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 (FY24–25, $800) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%ADAMS ANGELS: $500 → 14%ADAMS ANGELS: $300 → 14%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.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$74k · 7 repeat orgs$49k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
10

Total granted

$74k
$35k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+1%
+2%

Still filing today

86%
10%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $14k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
PhilanthropyPublic BenefitArts & CultureEducationHuman ServicesOther
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

  • AA
    ASHTABULA ARTS CENTER
    5× · 2021–2025 · $17k · revenue +75%
  • UW
    UNITED WAY OF ASHTABULA COUNTY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $8k · revenue +16%
  • AD
    ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER ASSOCIATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $3k · revenue +1%

Funded once

  • AC
    ASHTABULA COUNTY YMCA
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
  • UW
    UNITED WAY OF ASHLAND COUNTY
    one grant, 2023 · $7k · revenue +2%
  • CD
    CIVIC DEVELOPMENT CORP
    one grant, 2021 · $7k
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
Growth Partnership for Ashtabula Co

To achieve economic prosperity and improve the quality of life for all of ashtabula county.

—
2
Ashtabula County Continued Education Support Services

To provide ashtabula county children and parents a greater awareness of the opportunity for higher education and to assist families with discovering and obtaining the financial resources necessary to reach the goal of a higher education.

Education
3
Ashtabula County Animal Protective League

To operate an animal shelter, educate the public, and prevent cruelty to animals.

Animals
4
Ashtabula County Day Care Center Inc

To provide high-quality child care to infants and children.

Human Services
5
Ashtabula County Council On Aging Inc

Organization that operates a multi-purpose senior center for persons sixty years of age or older and their spouses, regardless of age, living in ashtabula county, ohio. the agency also provides older americans with health assessment,…

Human Services
6
Ashtabula Homeless Shelterinc

Provide emergency shelter and meals, case management and assessment to homeless individuals and families from the ashtabula county and surrounding areas.

Housing & Shelter
7
Ashland County Aging Unit

Services to the elderly

Human Services
8
Ashland Area Development Corp

To further economic development in the ashland county area of wisconsin.

Community Improvement
9
Goodwill Industries of Ashtabula Inc

Serve disabled and disadvantaged adults seeking to develop job and interpersonal skills necessary to compete in the working world.

—
10
Ashland Area Economic Development Corporation

Economic development in and around ashland nebraska.

Community Improvement
11
Associated Charities of Ashland Ohio Inc

To provide short-term emergency financial assistance to the people in ashland county in the way of utilities, shelter, medication, pre-approved doctor and dental visits, and gasoline vouchers to doctor appointments out of town.

Human Services
12
Asheville Downtown Association Inc

Our mission is to enhance the joyful experience of working, living, and exploring in downtown asheville. as the voice of downtown, we work to preserve the integrity of our community and support innovation for a dynamic, economically…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of Ashland County; the most unlike its peers is Adams Angels. 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

9 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. 9 of the 22 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST JOHN SCHOOL: $18,250 · OtherST JOHN SCHOOLASHTABULA COUNTY YMCA: $10,000 · OtherASHTABULA COUNTY YMCACIVIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $7,000 · OtherCIVIC DEVELOPMENT CORPUNITED WAY OF ASHTABULA: $6,000 · OtherUNITED WAY OF ASHTABULASAMARITIAN HOUSE: $5,000 · OtherSAMARITIAN HOUSECATHOLIC CHARITIES: $5,000 · OtherCATHOLIC CHARITIESATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER ASSOCIATION: $3,000 · OtherCONVERSATION STATION: $2,450 · Other+6 more: $4,500 · Other+6 moreUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $7,500 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY WORLDWIDEUNITED WAY OF ASHTABULA COUNTY: $7,500 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF ASHTAB…UNITED WAY OF ASHLAND COUNTY: $7,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF ASHLAN…CIVIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ASHTABULA COUNTY: $2,000 · PhilanthropyCIVIC DEVELOPMENT CO…ASHTABULA ARTS CENTER: $16,500 · Arts & CultureASHTABULA ARTS…LEADERSHIP ASHTABULA COUNTY INC: $16,500 · Public BenefitLEADERSHIP ASH…AFTER SCHOOL DISCOVERY INC: $11,000 · EducationAFTER SCH…ADAMS ANGELS: $800 · Human Services
Other$61,200Philanthropy$24,000Arts & Culture$16,500Public Benefit$16,500Education$11,000Human Services$800

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 budgetASHTABULA ARTS CENTER: $16,500 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetLEADERSHIP ASHTABULA COUNTY INC: $16,500 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetAFTER SCHOOL DISCOVERY INC: $11,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $7,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED WAY OF ASHTABULA COUNTY: $7,500 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetUNITED WAY OF ASHLAND COUNTY: $7,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER ASSOCIATION: $3,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetADAMS ANGELS: $800 over 2y, 0.6% 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 ASHTABULA ARTS CENTER ↗
  • Who funds LEADERSHIP ASHTABULA COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds AFTER SCHOOL DISCOVERY INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY WORLDWIDE ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF ASHTABULA COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF ASHLAND COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds CIVIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ASHTABULA COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds ADAMS ANGELS ↗

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.

Robert S Morrison FoundationOH17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Robert S Morrison Foundation · The Business of Good Foundation · The Ashtabula Foundation Inc · Firstenergy Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Ford Albert M Charitable Tw funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ford Albert M Charitable Tw. 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%1%3%4%5%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 22 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 Ford Albert M Charitable Tw’s filings →

    More from the funding graph