Skip to content
James L and Mary Jane Bowman Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

James L and Mary Jane Bowman Charitable Trust

Its FY2022 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$28k
Granted FY2022
6
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$5k
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, FY2020 to 2022.

Arts & Culture$911kAnimals$719kFood & Nutrition$520kYouth Development$500kHuman Services$491kPublic Safety & Disaster$428kHousing & Shelter$165kEducation$100kOther$0
02FY2022 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$5,000
STONE HOUSE FOUNDATION$5,000
DAKOTA'S DREAM ANIMAL RESCUE$5,000
STEPHENS CITY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT$5,000
BLUE RIDGE WILDLIFE CENTER$5,000
WILDLIFE VETERINARY CARE$2,948
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 (FY20–20, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 5%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 5%BLUE RIDGE HOSPICE: $6k → 16%FAITH IN ACTION: $1k → 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.
$2.7M · 12 repeat orgs$1.3M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +97% since the first grant, against -1% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2022, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
16

Total granted

$2.7M
$1.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+97%
-1%

Still filing today

42%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22
AnimalsArts & CultureHuman ServicesPhilanthropyHousing & ShelterEmploymentOther
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

  • BG
    BELLE GROVE INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $751k · revenue +74% · 49% of their budget
  • BR
    BLUE RIDGE WILDLIFE CENTER
    3× · 2020–2022 · $258k · revenue +281%
  • DD
    DAKOTA'S DREAM ANIMAL RESCUEINC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $80k · revenue +1% · 41% of their budget

Funded once

  • HW
    HENRY & WILLIAM EVANS HOME FOR CHILDREN INC
    one grant, 2020 · $500k
  • TL
    THE LAUREL CENTER INTERVENTION FOR DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE
    one grant, 2021 · $300k · revenue -15%
  • WR
    WINCHESTER RESCUE MISSIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $150k · revenue +242%
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
Wild Souls Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation
Animals
2
Forever Wild Wildlife Rescue
Animals
3
Wolfe Ranch Rescue
Animals
4
Mount Vernon Animal Rescue Inc

Mount Vernon Animal Rescue Inc. is dedicated to advancing animal welfare through finding adopters and fosters for homeless animals, providing veterinarian care to animals in need, and assisting wildlife rehabilitators with injured and…

Animals
5
Spirit of the Hills Wildlife Sanctuary

Provide lodging, rehabbing, training and socializing of unwanted animals

Animals
6
War Angel Farms Rescue and Rehabilitation Inc
Animals
7
Bristow Barnyard Farm and Domestic Animal Rescue
Animals
8
Bella View Farm Animal Sanctuary Inc
Animals
9
Grace Farm Animal Rescue and Sanctu
Animals
10
Angel Wing Acres Animal Welfare Soc Lombas
Animals
11
Twiggs County Animal Rescue

Save animals in a county with no animal services

Animals
12
Blue Waters Dog Rescue

We are a non-profit organization dedicated to helping animals in need. Our focus is on rescuing and rehabilitating animals. We provide the full curriculum of care for each dog rescued, This includes: shelter, food, spaying & neutering,…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Blue Ridge Wildlife Center; the most unlike its peers is Stone House Foundation. 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

14 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. 14 of the 29 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
8/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HENRY & WILLIAM EVANS HOME FOR CHILDREN INC: $500,000 · OtherHENRY & WILLIAM EVANS HOME FOR CHILDREN INCSPCA: $265,000 · OtherSPCASTEPHENS CITY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $265,000 · OtherSTEPHENS CITY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTSALVATION ARMY: $260,000 · OtherSALVATION ARMYBLUE RIDGE AREA FOOD BANK NETWORK (LORD FAIRFAX BRANCH): $260,000 · OtherBLUE RIDGE AREA FOOD BANK NETWORK (LORD FAIRFAX BRANCH)CCAP WINCHESTER: $188,000 · OtherCCAP WINCHESTERIndividual grant recipient: $160,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientESTHER BOYD ANIMAL SHELTER: $105,000 · OtherUNITED WAY OF NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY INC: $100,000 · OtherHANDLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY: $100,000 · OtherTHE BETHEL MEMORIAL INC: $100,000 · Other+5 more: $21,000 · OtherBELLE GROVE INC: $750,500 · Arts & CultureBELLE GROVE INCSTONE HOUSE FOUNDATION: $60,000 · Arts & CultureSTONE HOUSE FOUNDATION+1 more: $500 · Arts & CultureTHE LAUREL CENTER INTERVENTION FOR DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE: $300,000 · Human Services+2 more: $7,000 · Human ServicesBLUE RIDGE WILDLIFE CENTER: $257,500 · PhilanthropyWINCHESTER RESCUE MISSION: $150,000 · Housing & ShelterDAKOTA'S DREAM ANIMAL RESCUEINC: $80,000 · AnimalsThe Community Cat Alliance: $7,041 · Animals+2 more: $4,948 · AnimalsNW WORKS INC: $30,000 · Employment
Other$2,324,000Arts & Culture$811,000Human Services$307,000Philanthropy$257,500Housing & Shelter$150,000Animals$91,989Employment$30,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBELLE GROVE INC: $750,500 over 2y, 49% of budgetTHE LAUREL CENTER INTERVENTION FOR DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE: $300,000 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetBLUE RIDGE WILDLIFE CENTER: $257,500 over 3y, 16% of budgetWINCHESTER RESCUE MISSION: $150,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetUNITED WAY OF NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY INC: $100,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetDAKOTA'S DREAM ANIMAL RESCUEINC: $80,000 over 2y, 41% of budgetSTONE HOUSE FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 3y, 19% of budgetNW WORKS INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetThe Community Cat Alliance: $7,041 over 2y, 6.7% of budgetBLUE RIDGE HOSPICE INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWILDLIFE VETERINARY CARE: $2,948 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetANIMAL ALLIES INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWINCHESTER-FREDERICK-CLARK FAITH IN ACTION: $1,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetTHE GLASS-GLEN BURNIE MUSEUM INC: $500 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 BELLE GROVE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE LAUREL CENTER INTERVENTION FOR DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE ↗
  • Who funds BLUE RIDGE WILDLIFE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds WINCHESTER RESCUE MISSION ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY INC ↗
  • Who funds DAKOTA'S DREAM ANIMAL RESCUEINC ↗
  • Who funds STONE HOUSE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds NW WORKS INC ↗
  • Who funds The Community Cat Alliance ↗
  • Who funds BLUE RIDGE HOSPICE INC ↗
  • Who funds WILDLIFE VETERINARY CARE ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL ALLIES INC ↗
  • Who funds WINCHESTER-FREDERICK-CLARK FAITH IN ACTION ↗
  • Who funds THE GLASS-GLEN BURNIE MUSEUM 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

American Woodmark Fou…The Bank of Clarke Co…The Shoemaker Family …United Way of Norther…Agt Hollis Family Fou…The Clara Weiss FundFeltner Community Fou…John L Harrell & Marg…Andrew U Ferrari Foun…Valley Health SystemThe Community Foundat…The Community Foundat…
American Woodmark Foundation IncVA23.9× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Woodmark Foundation Inc · The Bank of Clarke County Foundation · The Shoemaker Family Charitable Trust Ua Dtd 12 12 2012 · United Way of Northern Shenandoah Valley Inc · Agt Hollis Family Foundation · The Clara Weiss Fund · Feltner Community Foundation · John L Harrell & Margaret T Harrell Charitable Trust C/O First Bank Trustee · Andrew U Ferrari Foundation · Valley Health System · The Community Foundation of the Northern Shenandoah Valley · The Community Foundation of Harrisonburg & Rockingham County

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 James L and Mary Jane Bowman Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from James L and Mary Jane Bowman Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 James L and Mary Jane Bowman Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to James L and Mary Jane Bowman Charitable Trust 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 29 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on James L and Mary Jane Bowman’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