How much does Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr give?

Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr reported 18 grants totaling $147,202 in its FY2026 IRS filing. It funded between 17 and 26 organizations a year over FY2018 to FY2025.

What does Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr fund?

By grant dollars over FY2018 to FY2026, its largest causes are Education (22%), Community Improvement (12%), Youth Development (10%).

Who are Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr's largest grantees?

By total granted over FY2018 to FY2026: Northwest Foundation Inc ($160k), Pivotal Point Transitional Housing Inc ($91k), St Joseph Safety and Health Council ($75k).

Does Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr fund new organizations?

In FY2025, 29% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.

Does Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr accept unsolicited applications?

Its most recent filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and does not take unsolicited requests. Check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

Where is Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr based?

Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr is based in MN.

Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr

Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr at a glance

· Private foundation

Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr

Q: Which funders back the same organizations as Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr?

Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include Harry and Helena Messick Charitable Tr, Harold P Dugdale Charitable Trust, The Community Foundation of Northwest Missouriinc.

Its FY2026 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 FY2026still arriving

Grants FY2026still arriving

States reached

$24k

Largest

01What it funds

0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$208kCommunity Improvement$112kYouth Development$92kArts & Culture$91kHousing & Shelter$72kPublic Safety & Disaster$69kFood & Nutrition$46kHuman Services$44kOther$0

02FY2026 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2026

Under $10k13 grants · $66k
$10k–50k5 grants · $81k

$5,000

Median grant

States reached

$2.9M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
PIVOTAL POINT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING INC	$24,200
NORTHWEST FOUNDATION INC	$20,000
TARKIO COLLEGE FOUNDATION	$16,251
ST JOSEPH SAFETY & HEALTH COUNCIL	$11,000
PONY EXPRESS NATIONAL MUSEUM	$10,000
Individual grant recipient	$9,000
NORTHWEST MISSOURI ENTERPRISE FACILITATI	$7,900
WORTH COUNTY PROGRESS ORGANIZATION	$7,000
Individual grant recipient	$5,000
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS	$5,000
ELMO BETTERMENT CORPORATION	$5,000
CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTER	$4,900
ANDREW COUNTY HEALTH AND SAFETY COALITIO	$4,900
STATE THEATER ARTS COUNCIL INC	$4,500
SPECIAL OLYMPICS MISSOURI	$4,000

02The need

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 (FY21–23, $22k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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.

68%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.

$721k · 24 repeat orgs$346k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +28% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

24 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2026, 16 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$721k

$284k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%

+1%

Still filing today

42%

33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $63k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Community ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentHealthOther

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

PP
PIVOTAL POINT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING INC
6× · 2021–2026 · $91k · revenue +28%
SJ
ST JOSEPH SAFETY AND HEALTH COUNCIL
7× · 2018–2026 · $75k · revenue +2%
GS
GIRL SCOUTS OF NE KANSAS AND NW MISSOURI INC
6× · 2020–2025 · $21k · revenue +3%

Funded once

HC
HOLT COUNTY MUSEUM & RESEARCH CENTER
one grant, 2018 · $40k
HC
HOLT COUNTY CANCER FUND INC
one grant, 2021 · $15k
NM
NORTHWEST MISSOURI INDUSTRIES INC
one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue +9%

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.

Northeast Missouri Sheltered Workshop

To provide productive employment opportunities to educable and trainable handicapped individuals

—

St Charles Historical Society

Collection and preservation of historical documents pertaining to saint charles county, missouri and making them available to the general public

—

North County Inc

To promote the North St Louis County economy and community

—

St Joseph Area Chamber of Commerce

To serve as a catalyst for economic grown and development in northwest missouri

—

Jefferson County Historical Society

Operation of a local history museum.

—

Missouri Valley Housing Corporation

Provide housing for elderly

Housing & Shelter

Northland Health Care Access

Operating an integrated community health system providing access to health care for the uninsured low income residents of three counties in Missouri

Health

Northland Regional Chamber of Commerce

The northland regional chamber of commerce promotes growth and development in the kansas city, missouri northland area by monitoring important issues,educating members, assisting support activities, and providing a unified voice for…

—

North Missindustrial Development a

Promoting northeast mississippi for industrial growth.

—

North Central Kansas Housing Opportunities Inc

Community Improvement

Platte Senior Services Inc

Provide meals,transportation and social interaction opportunities for senior citizens living in platte county missouri

Human Services

Rolla Regional Economic Commission

To facilitate development of long-term diversified business and employment opportunities in Rolla, MO, Phelps County and the surrounding areas.

Community Improvement

How this is measured

The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northwest Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Lettuce Dream. 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

35 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. 35 of the 87 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

34/35

Grantees still filing

23/35

Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Other$618,504Education$289,925Community Improvement$64,565Philanthropy$43,000Arts & Culture$42,000Youth Development$30,250Human Services$21,856

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

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.

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.

Harry and Helena Messick Charitable TrMN51.7× affinity22 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Harry and Helena Messick Charitable Tr · Harold P Dugdale Charitable Trust · The Community Foundation of Northwest Missouriinc · Gladys M Rickard Charitable Trust · Commerce Bancshares Foundation · Wm and Margaret Schreiber Char Tr · Heartland Regional Medical Center · Norma J and William J Kenney Charitable · Greater Kansas City Community Foundation · Young at Heart Resources · The Depriest Family Foundation Inc · Mfa Oil 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 Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr. Bigger dots raise more.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

15report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%

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.

Play a game based on Gary G Taylor Charitable Tr’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