Skip to content

· Private foundation

Joan C Ray Charitable Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$38k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$7k
Largest
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 2024.

Health$164kReligion$60kPublic Benefit$40kCrime & Legal$32kHuman Services$17k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$4,700
Median grant
2
States reached
$699k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE FOSTER ALLIANCE$7,000
FREE ARTS FOR ABUSED CHILDREN OF ARIZONA$7,000
PHOENIX DOWNTOWN LIONS CLUB FOUNDATION$4,700
STEPPING STONES OF HOPE$4,700
JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION$4,700
PHOENIX CHILDRENS HOSPITAL$4,700
VALLEYWISE HEALTH FOUNDATION$4,700
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 (FY17–22, $55k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%RYAN HOUSE: $10k → 11%RYAN HOUSE: $10k → 11%RYAN HOUSE: $10k → 11%RYAN HOUSE: $10k → 11%RYAN HOUSE: $10k → 11%RYAN HOUSE: $5k → 11%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$313k · 9 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
0

Total granted

$313k
$0

Still filing today

67%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesCrime & LegalEducationOther
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

  • RH
    RYAN HOUSE
    6× · 2017–2022 · $55k · revenue +2%
  • BT
    BREAKTHROUGH T1D
    8× · 2017–2024 · $40k · revenue +49%
  • PC
    Phoenix Children's Hospital
    7× · 2017–2024 · $35k · revenue +98%

Funded once

    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

    6 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. 6 of the 9 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)
    0
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    6/6
    Grantees still filing
    4/6
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    KINGDOM DISCIPLESHIP: $60,075 · OtherKINGDOM DISCIPLESHIPPHOENIX DOWNTOWN LIONS CLUB FOUNDATION: $39,775 · OtherPHOENIX DOWNTOWN LIONS CLUB FOUNDATIONSTEPPING STONES OF HOPE: $24,775 · OtherSTEPPING STONES OF HOPEBREAKTHROUGH T1D: $39,775 · HealthBREAKTHROUGH T1DPhoenix Children's Hospital: $34,775 · HealthPhoenix Children's HospitalVALLEYWISE HEALTH FOUNDATION: $9,525 · HealthVALLEYWISE HEALTH FOUNDATIONRYAN HOUSE: $55,250 · Human ServicesRYAN HOUSEFREE ARTS FOR ABUSED CHILDREN OF ARIZONA: $32,075 · Crime & LegalFREE ARTS F…THE FOSTER ALLIANCE: $17,075 · Education
    Other$124,625Health$84,075Human Services$55,250Crime & Legal$32,075Education$17,075

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

    25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRYAN HOUSE: $55,250 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetBREAKTHROUGH T1D: $39,775 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetPhoenix Children's Hospital: $34,775 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetFREE ARTS FOR ABUSED CHILDREN OF ARIZONA: $32,075 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetTHE FOSTER ALLIANCE: $17,075 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetVALLEYWISE HEALTH FOUNDATION: $9,525 over 2y, 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 RYAN HOUSE ↗
    • Who funds BREAKTHROUGH T1D ↗
    • Who funds Phoenix Children's Hospital ↗
    • Who funds FREE ARTS FOR ABUSED CHILDREN OF ARIZONA ↗
    • Who funds THE FOSTER ALLIANCE ↗
    • Who funds VALLEYWISE HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗

    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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

    Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: 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 Joan C Ray Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Joan C Ray Charitable Foundation. 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 9 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Joan C Ray’s filings →

      More from the funding graph