Skip to content
John C Williams Charitable Tr 8024 at a glance

· Private foundation

John C Williams Charitable Tr 8024

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$430k
Granted FY2025still arriving
25
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$44k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$913kHealth$426kRecreation & Sports$405kEducation$323kAnimals$266kReligion$261kYouth Development$184kEmployment$178kOther$0
02FY2025 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k23 grants · $416k
$15,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$9.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE SALVATION ARMY$43,938
Ohio Valley Youth Network$30,000
OHIO VALLEY HEALTH CENTER$30,000
JEFFERSON COUNTY AMIMAL WELFARE$25,000
WEIRTON CHRISTIAN CENTER$24,971
WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN COMMUNITY$20,000
OFFICE OF SOCIAL MINISTRY$20,000
AIM WOMENS CENTER$16,733
Individual grant recipient$15,000
YOUTH SERVICES SYSTEM INC$15,000
A CARING PLACE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER$15,000
Individual grant recipient$15,000
HANCOCK COUNTY HUMANE FOUNDATION INC$15,000
VAGABOND MISSIONS$15,000
THE STEUBENVILLE CULTURAL TRUST$15,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY18–25, $165k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $15k → 14%Young Women's Christian Association: $12k → 19%CATHOLIC CHARITIES WEST VIRGINIA: $18k → 15%CATHOLIC CHARITIES WEST VIRGINIA: $18k → 15%CATHOLIC CHARITIES WEST VIRGINIA: $18k → 15%YOUTH SERVICES SYSTEM INC: $16k → 15%YOUTH SERVICES SYSTEM INC: $15k → 15%YOUTH SERVICES SYSTEM INC: $15k → 15%YOUTH SERVICES SYSTEM INC: $10k → 15%BROOKE HANCOCK FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK: $14k → 12%BROOKE HANCOCK FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK: $10k → 12%CENTER OF HOPE FRIENDSHIP ROOM: $6k → 19%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

NH
IL
MA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
KY
WV
DC
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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.0M · 35 repeat orgs$531k to everyone else

35 repeat relationships: 19 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

35
27

Total granted

$3.0M
$435k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+15%
+25%

Still filing today

54%
44%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $96k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesYouth DevelopmentHealthAnimalsRecreation & SportsPhilanthropyOther
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

  • OV
    OHIO VALLEY HEALTH CENTER
    8× · 2017–2025 · $245k · revenue +218% · 40% of their budget
  • BO
    BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
    4× · 2017–2021 · $175k · revenue +152%
  • UM
    URBAN MISSION MINISTRIES INC
    3× · 2018–2021 · $106k · revenue +74%

Funded once

  • WH
    WIER HIGH SCHOOL
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
  • TS
    TRI STATE UNITED SOCCER LTD
    one grant, 2021 · $35k · revenue -5% · 43% of their budget
  • SJ
    ST JOSEPHS PARISH GRADE SCHOOL
    one grant, 2017 · $33k
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
Catholic Charities Southwestern Ohio

Catholic Charities Southwestern Ohio serves and empowers people through God's love in their times of vulnerability. We do so through a full range of local services that engage the community in building solidarity.

Human Services
2
Choices for Victims of Domestic Violence

To create a better world by serving people in need by operating food pantries, homeless shelters, a domestic violence shelter, affordable housing communities, senior living, assisted living and skilled care facilities, a home health care…

Human Services
3
Catholic Charities Counseling & Adoption Services of the Diocese of Erie Inc

Provide adoption, counseling services, and refugee assistance

—
4
Catholic Charities Terre Haute Inc

Catholic Charities Terre Haute is a comprehensive, direct services agency whose purpose is to serve the poor, the homeless, the elderly, the neglected children and the needy.

—
5
Catholic Charities West Michigan

Inspired by the church's social teachings, catholic charities west michigan fosters individuals and families to flourish by providing help and creating hope.

—
6
Cleveland Care Center Inc

We are a religious-based 501c3 non-profit to provide community support for mothers and babies.

Human Services
7
Habitat for Humanity of Cleveland Inc

Habitat for humanity of cleveland is a non-profit christian housing ministry. habitat works in partnership with god and people everywhere, from all walks of life, to develop communities for people in need by building and selling houses…

Housing & Shelter
8
Terre Haute Catholic Charities Foodbank Inc

The mission of Terre Haute Catholic Charities Foodbank is to feed the hungry in Clay, Greene, Knox, Parke, Sullivan, Vermillion and Vigo counties through a network of emergency food distribution member agencies and engage our community in…

Food & Nutrition
9
Lutheran Social Services of Central Ohio Delaware Housing Inc

See schedule oto create a better world by serving people in need by operating food pantries, homeless shelters, a domestic violence shelter, affordable housing communities, senior living, assisted living and skilled care facilities, a home…

—
10
Stark Housing Network Inc

Ending homelessness in stark county ohio.

Human Services
11
Columbus Alliance for Battered Women Inc dba Hope Harbour

Columbus alliance for battered women provides emergency shelter, security, crisis intervention, and advocacy for adult and child victims of domestic violence.

Human Services
12
West Side Catholic Center

The west side catholic center provides food, clothing, shelter, and advocacy to all who come to us in need. through various programs, we serve the homeless and indigent of cleveland, ohio.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Crittenton Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Young Womens Christian Association Central Indiana. 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, 2017–2025.

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. 35 of the 68 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
33/35
Grantees still filing
22/35
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE SALVATION ARMY: $284,544 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYWEIRTON CHRISTIAN CENTER INC: $281,707 · OtherWEIRTON CHRISTIAN CENTER INCWEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN COMMUNITY: $189,794 · OtherWEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN COMMUNITYSTARVAGGI MEMORIAL PARK CIVIC: $120,565 · OtherSTARVAGGI MEMORIAL PARK CIVICURBAN MISSION MINISTRIES INC: $106,258 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $90,000 · Other+45 more: $1,115,354 · Other+45 moreJEFFERSON COUNTY ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $235,646 · AnimalsHANCOCK COUNTY HUMANE FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 · AnimalsOHIO VALLEY HEALTH CENTER: $245,307 · HealthTRINITY HEALTH FOUNDATION: $15,000 · HealthHANCOCK COUNTY SHELTERED WORKSHOP INC: $157,553 · EmploymentCHANGE INC: $78,121 · EmploymentBOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: $175,000 · Recreation & SportsTRI STATE UNITED SOCCER LTD: $34,650 · Recreation & SportsOhio Valley Youth Network: $66,564 · Youth DevelopmentVAGABOND MISSIONS: $65,000 · Youth DevelopmentBLUE STREAM FARMS CORPORATION: $34,421 · Youth DevelopmentYOUTH SERVICES SYSTEM INC: $55,873 · Human ServicesCATHOLIC CHARITIES WEST VIRGINIA INC: $52,500 · Human ServicesBROOKE HANCOCK FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK INC: $24,400 · Human ServicesAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $15,000 · Human ServicesYOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION CENTRAL INDIANA: $12,000 · Human ServicesCENTER OF HOPE FRIENDSHIP ROOM: $5,568 · Human Services
Other$2,188,222Animals$265,646Health$260,307Employment$235,674Recreation & Sports$209,650Youth Development$165,985Human Services$165,341

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWEIRTON CHRISTIAN CENTER INC: $281,707 over 9y, 6.4% of budgetOHIO VALLEY HEALTH CENTER: $245,307 over 8y, 40% of budgetJEFFERSON COUNTY ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $235,646 over 7y, 20% of budgetBOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: $175,000 over 4y, 5.1% of budgetHANCOCK COUNTY SHELTERED WORKSHOP INC: $157,553 over 3y, 3.1% of budgetURBAN MISSION MINISTRIES INC: $106,258 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetCHANGE INC: $78,121 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetOhio Valley Youth Network: $66,564 over 3y, 6.3% of budgetVAGABOND MISSIONS: $65,000 over 4y, 2.3% of budgetYOUTH SERVICES SYSTEM INC: $55,873 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES WEST VIRGINIA INC: $52,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetUNITED WAY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY: $43,500 over 4y, 5.9% of budgetCRITTENTON FOUNDATION INC: $37,961 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetTRI STATE UNITED SOCCER LTD: $34,650 over 1y, 43% of budgetBLUE STREAM FARMS CORPORATION: $34,421 over 3y, 26% of budgetHANCOCK COUNTY HUMANE FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetA CARING PLACE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER: $27,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetSTEUBENVILLE CULTURAL TRUST: $25,000 over 2y, 9.4% of budgetHILLTOP CHILDREN'S HOUSE: $25,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetBROOKE HANCOCK FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK INC: $24,400 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetA CHILDS PLACE CASA LTD: $24,077 over 3y, 4.5% of budgetCHILDREN'S HUNGER ALLIANCE: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCommunity Bread Basket Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetFRANCISCAN UNIVERSITY OF STEUBENVILLE: $19,662 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHARITY HOSPICE INC: $17,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetAIM WOMEN'S CENTER: $16,733 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetTRINITY HEALTH FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWEIRTON BASEBALL ASSOCIATION INC: $15,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetDAUGHTERS OF HOLY MARY OF THE HEART OF JESUS: $13,095 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetVALLEY HOSPICE INC: $12,654 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetYOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION CENTRAL INDIANA: $12,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetOLD FORT STEUBEN PROJECT INC: $9,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetCENTER OF HOPE FRIENDSHIP ROOM: $5,568 over 1y, 1.9% 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 WEIRTON CHRISTIAN CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds OHIO VALLEY HEALTH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds JEFFERSON COUNTY ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ↗
  • Who funds HANCOCK COUNTY SHELTERED WORKSHOP INC ↗
  • Who funds URBAN MISSION MINISTRIES INC ↗
  • Who funds CHANGE INC ↗
  • Who funds Ohio Valley Youth Network ↗
  • Who funds VAGABOND MISSIONS ↗
  • Who funds YOUTH SERVICES SYSTEM INC ↗
  • Who funds CATHOLIC CHARITIES WEST VIRGINIA INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds CRITTENTON FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds TRI STATE UNITED SOCCER LTD ↗
  • Who funds BLUE STREAM FARMS CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds HANCOCK COUNTY HUMANE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds A CARING PLACE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds STEUBENVILLE CULTURAL TRUST ↗
  • Who funds REFUGE FOR WOMEN INC ↗
  • Who funds HILLTOP CHILDREN'S HOUSE ↗
  • Who funds BROOKE HANCOCK FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds A CHILDS PLACE CASA LTD ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S HUNGER ALLIANCE ↗

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.

Esther N Simmons Char…Community Foundation …Hancock County Saving…Charles M Pugliese an…Mary Jane Brooks Char…Robert H Reakirt Fdn …Starvaggi Charities I…American Electric Pow…Steel Valley CharitiesMargaretta Churchman …United Way of the Upp…Weirton United Way Inc
Esther N Simmons Charitable TrustPA36.9× affinity15 shared granteesties to 9 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Esther N Simmons Charitable Trust · Community Foundation for the Ohio Valley Inc · Hancock County Savings Charitable Foundation · Charles M Pugliese and Thelma M Pugliese Charitable Foundation · Mary Jane Brooks Charitable Trust · Robert H Reakirt Fdn Equities · Starvaggi Charities Inc · American Electric Power Foundation · Steel Valley Charities · Margaretta Churchman Char Trust · United Way of the Upper Ohio Valley Inc · Weirton United Way Inc

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 John C Williams Charitable Tr 8024 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from John C Williams Charitable Tr 8024. 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%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    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 68 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 John C Williams Charitable Tr 8024’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