Skip to content

· Private foundation

Glastad Charitable Trust

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.

$34k
Granted FY2025still arriving
18
Grants FY2025still arriving
10
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it funds
0174% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Religion$76kInternational$39kEducation$17kPhilanthropy$8kHuman Services$6kRecreation & Sports$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,200
Median grant
10
States reached
$753k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
1517ORG$5,000
TEAM$4,000
Washed in the World$4,000
Bible Exposition Institute$3,000
Allegro Organizational Solutions$2,000
Global Service Network$2,000
Love God Greatly$2,000
CRU$2,000
Teach Beyond$1,200
Rooted$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
Wheels of Hope$1,000
Student Mobilization$1,000
SIM USA$1,000
Mosaic Church of Houston$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 53% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%Bible Exposition Institute: $2k → 8%Camp of the Woods: $2k → 11%Global Service Network: $2k → 20%Bible Exposition Institute: $3k → 8%Center Point Bible Institute: $4k → 13%Baylor Foundation: $2k → 14%Allegro Organizational Solutions: $2k → 16%CRU: $2k → 13%Wheaton Academy: $2k → 7%TEAM: $4k → 8%Washed in the World: $4k → 16%Global Service Network: $2k → 20%Bible Exposition Institute: $3k → 8%Center Point Bible Institute: $4k → 13%Baylor Foundation: $2k → 14%Allegro Organizational Solutions: $2k → 16%CRU: $2k → 13%Wheaton Academy: $2k → 7%TEAM: $4k → 8%Washed in the World: $4k → 16%Global Service Network: $2k → 20%Bible Exposition Institute: $3k → 8%Center Point Bible Institute: $3k → 13%Baylor Foundation: $2k → 14%Allegro Organizational Solutions: $2k → 16%CRU: $2k → 13%TEAM: $4k → 8%Global Service Network: $2k → 20%Love God Greatly: $2k → 5%Bible Exposition Institute: $3k → 8%Baylor Foundation: $2k → 14%Allegro Organizational Solutions: $2k → 16%CRU: $2k → 13%TEAM: $4k → 8%Global Service Network: $2k → 20%Love God Greatly: $2k → 5%Christar: $3k → 14%Allegro Organizational Solutions: $2k → 16%CRU: $2k → 13%Global Service Network: $2k → 20%Love God Greatly: $2k → 5%Christar: $3k → 14%CRU: $2k → 13%Love God Greatly: $2k → 5%CRU: $2k → 13%Love God Greatly: $2k → 5%Love God Greatly: $2k → 5%Love God Greatly: $2k → 5%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
NY
PA
NJ
CA
AR
NC
TX
FL
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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$215k · 23 repeat orgs$5k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +58% since the first grant, against +5% for those funded once.

23 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
5

Total granted

$215k
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+58%
+5%

Still filing today

17%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionInternationalEducationOther
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

  • LG
    LOVE GOD GREATLY INC
    7× · 2019–2025 · $14k · revenue +58%
  • AO
    ALLEGRO ORGANIZATIONAL SOLUTIONS INC
    7× · 2019–2025 · $13k · revenue +64%
  • WA
    WHEATON ACADEMY
    7× · 2019–2025 · $9k · revenue +36%

Funded once

  • CO
    Camp of the Woods
    one grant, 2023 · $2k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $1k
  • LB
    Lutheran Brethren Missions
    one grant, 2022 · $1k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 28 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Team Giving: $35,000 · OtherTeam GivingTEAM: $18,000 · OtherTEAMCRU: $14,000 · OtherCRUBible Exposition Institute: $13,500 · OtherBible Exposition InstituteCENTER POINT BIBLE INSTITUTE: $13,400 · OtherCENTER POINT BIBLE INSTITUTEGlobal Service Network: $12,000 · OtherGlobal Service Network1517ORG: $11,000 · Other1517ORGTEACHBEYOND INC: $8,400 · OtherWashed in the World: $8,000 · OtherBaylor Foundation: $8,000 · OtherChristar: $7,500 · OtherSTUDENT MOBILIZATION INC: $6,700 · Other+11 more: $24,150 · Other+11 moreLOVE GOD GREATLY INC: $14,000 · ReligionLOVE GOD …POIEMA FOUNDATION INC: $3,600 · ReligionPOIEMA FO…PROBE MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL: $750 · ReligionALLEGRO ORGANIZATIONAL SOLUTIONS INC: $13,000 · InternationalWHEATON ACADEMY: $9,000 · Education
Other$179,650Religion$18,350International$13,000Education$9,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLOVE GOD GREATLY INC: $14,000 over 7y, 0.9% of budgetALLEGRO ORGANIZATIONAL SOLUTIONS INC: $13,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetWHEATON ACADEMY: $9,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetPOIEMA FOUNDATION INC: $3,600 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetPROBE MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL: $750 over 1y, 0.1% 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 LOVE GOD GREATLY INC ↗
  • Who funds ALLEGRO ORGANIZATIONAL SOLUTIONS INC ↗
  • Who funds WHEATON ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds POIEMA FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PROBE MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL ↗

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.

Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA8.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Glastad Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Glastad Charitable Trust. 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
    1report 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 28 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 Glastad’s filings →

    More from the funding graph