Skip to content
K S Adams Foundation Co-Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

K S Adams Foundation Co-Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$189k
Granted FY2025still arriving
31
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Education$281kPhilanthropy$224kYouth Development$200kReligion$122kAnimals$97kEnvironment$60kArts & Culture$52kHuman Services$52kOther$0
02FY2025 · 31 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k25 grants · $70k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $69k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$3,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$354k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
KANSAS UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT ASSO$50,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB$25,000
BARTLESVILLE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$12,500
WOOLAROC$11,000
NATURE CONSERVANCY$10,000
ALPHA XI OF SIGMA CHI$10,000
BARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY$6,500
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$5,000
BOONE & CROCKETT CLUB$5,000
OKLAHOMA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FOUND$5,000
PATHS TO INDEPENDENCE$5,000
RAY OF HOPE ADVOCACY CENTER$5,000
AMERICAN RED CROSS$5,000
SALVATION ARMY OF BARTLESVILLE OK$3,000
FRIENDS OF THE KIDDIE PARK$3,000
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 (FY17–25, $34k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SVCS: $3k → 15%DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SVCS: $3k → 15%DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SVCS: $3k → 15%MARTHA'S TASK: $3k → 14%MARTHA'S TASK: $3k → 14%MARTHA'S TASK: $3k → 14%MARTHA'S TASK: $3k → 14%MARTHA'S TASK: $3k → 14%MARTHA'S TASK: $3k → 14%MARTHA'S TASK: $3k → 14%MARTHA'S TASK: $3k → 14%YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $500 → 14%YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $500 → 14%YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $500 → 14%YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $500 → 14%YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $500 → 14%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 40 repeat orgs$37k to everyone else

40 repeat relationships: 27 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

40
4

Total granted

$1.1M
$35k

Still filing today

65%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
AnimalsArts & CultureHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyOther
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

  • BR
    BARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY IN
    9× · 2017–2025 · $57k · revenue +0%
  • BA
    BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB
    9× · 2017–2025 · $45k · revenue +25%
  • RO
    RAY OF HOPE ADVOCACY CENTER INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $40k · revenue +19%

Funded once

  • BF
    BARTLESVILLE FRIENDS PARK KIDDIEPARK
    one grant, 2018 · $30k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $2k
  • TC
    TULSA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
    one grant, 2019 · $2k
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
Tulsa Advocates for the Protection of Children

To improve the lives of children and youth in oklahoma's child welfare system by providing resources and building community.

Crime & Legal
2
Tulsa Spca

The Tulsa SPCA's mission is to improve the lives of dogs and cats, and their human companions.

Animals
3
Animal Aid of Tulsa Inc

Animal Aid is a private welfare organization dedicated to saving sick or injured stray dogs and cats, helping pets find loving homes, helping reunite lost and found pets with their owners and encouraging respect and awareness for the…

Animals
4
Boys and Girls Club of Bartlesville

To enable our young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their potential.

Youth Development
5
Oklahoma Animal Care Foundation

The oklahoma animal care foundation is committed to raising funds to improve the health and welfare of animals in oklahoma through education, public service and disaster response activities. our purpose is to educate the public about…

Community Improvement
6
Oklahoma Paws Memphis Street Animal Rescue

To assist in the ongoing battle of pet overpopulation in Oklahoma by offering a no kill shelter environment, responsible adoption, medical aid, and community outreach. We also intend to provide sanctuary to companion animals who's people…

Animals
7
Oklahoma Primate Sanctuary Inc

To provide monkeys retired from research and rescued from the pet trade and other abusive situations with permanent refuge and companionship in safe and healthy habitats.

Animals
8
Arkansas Wildlife Federation Inc

To ensure a thriving future for arkansas wildlife. the organization serves as an independent voice for all species of arkansas wildlife, a reliable source of factual information, and an inclusive partner toward the conservation and…

Animals
9
Wildlife Rescue of Central Texas

Wildlife rescue of central texas cares for injured and orphaned wildlife, provides public education programs, and promotes peaceful coexistence with our wild neighbors.

Animals
10
Nw Arkansas Animal Rescue Inc

To rescue animals

Animals
11
Pontotoc Animal Welfare Society

To provide an animal shelter, adoption services, and spay/neuter services to pontotoc county.

Animals
12
Lab Rescue Ok Inc

To provide community benefit in rescuing abandoned labrador dogs from city kill shelters. our efforts lessen the burden on city-county resources by providing animal care and reduction in overpopulation. we provide citizen education to…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bartlesville Regional United Way in; the most unlike its peers is The Friends of Frank Phillips Home. 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

29 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. 29 of the 48 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
29/29
Grantees still filing
15/29
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KANSAS UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT ASSO: $200,000 · OtherKANSAS UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT ASSOWOOLAROC: $157,000 · OtherWOOLAROCBOYS & GIRLS CLUB: $125,000 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUBTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $60,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYALPHA XI OF SIGMA CHI: $55,000 · OtherALPHA XI OF SIGMA CHIThe Frank Phillips Foundation Inc: $54,000 · OtherThe Frank Phillips Foundation IncBARTLESVILLE FRIENDS PARK KIDDIEPARK: $30,000 · Other+23 more: $174,650 · Other+23 moreBARTLESVILLE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $112,500 · PhilanthropyBARTLESVILLE CO…BARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY IN: $57,000 · PhilanthropyBARTLESVILLE RE…+1 more: $3,000 · PhilanthropyBOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB: $45,000 · AnimalsOKLAHOMA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $16,000 · AnimalsWASHINGTON COUNTY SPCA INC: $6,500 · AnimalsANIMAL RESCUE FOUNDATION: $6,500 · AnimalsGEORGE MIKSCH SUTTON AVIAN RESEARCH CENTER INC: $5,350 · AnimalsANIMAL RESCUE FOUNDATION INC: $4,500 · AnimalsWESTSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: $21,000 · Arts & CultureNATUREWORKS INC: $20,000 · Arts & CultureARTS ALLIANCE TULSA INC: $8,000 · Arts & CultureBartlesville Area Habitat for Humanity: $45,000 · Housing & ShelterYOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $2,000 · Housing & ShelterRAY OF HOPE ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $40,000 · Crime & LegalMARTHA'S TASK: $24,000 · Human ServicesDOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SERVICES: $7,500 · Human ServicesYOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES INC: $2,500 · Human Services
Other$855,650Philanthropy$172,500Animals$83,850Arts & Culture$49,000Housing & Shelter$47,000Crime & Legal$40,000Human Services$34,000

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 budgetBARTLESVILLE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $112,500 over 9y, 0.6% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $60,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetBARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY IN: $57,000 over 9y, 0.6% of budgetThe Frank Phillips Foundation Inc: $54,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetBOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB: $45,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetBartlesville Area Habitat for Humanity: $45,000 over 9y, 15% of budgetRAY OF HOPE ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $40,000 over 8y, 2.6% of budgetMARTHA'S TASK: $24,000 over 8y, 3.4% of budgetWESTSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: $21,000 over 7y, 2.4% of budgetNATUREWORKS INC: $20,000 over 8y, 12% of budgetBARTLESVILLE CIVIC BALLET INC: $20,000 over 9y, 2.4% of budgetOKLAHOMA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $16,000 over 4y, 1.5% of budgetPATHS TO INDEPENDENCE INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetHEARTMATTERS INC: $9,000 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetYOUNG SCHOLARS OF BARTLESVILLE INC: $9,000 over 9y, 0.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE KIDDIE PARK: $9,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF EASTERN OKLAHOMA INC: $9,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetARTS ALLIANCE TULSA INC: $8,000 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetDOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SERVICES: $7,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWASHINGTON COUNTY SPCA INC: $6,500 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetANIMAL RESCUE FOUNDATION: $6,500 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetARTS & HUMANITIES COUNCIL OF TULSA INC: $5,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetGEORGE MIKSCH SUTTON AVIAN RESEARCH CENTER INC: $5,350 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetANIMAL RESCUE FOUNDATION INC: $4,500 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetBARTLESVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetYOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES INC: $2,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetThe Friends of Frank Phillips Home: $2,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetYOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetABILITYWORKS OF OKLAHOMA INC: $1,000 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 BARTLESVILLE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds BARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY IN ↗
  • Who funds The Frank Phillips Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB ↗
  • Who funds Bartlesville Area Habitat for Humanity ↗
  • Who funds RAY OF HOPE ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds MARTHA'S TASK ↗
  • Who funds WESTSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds NATUREWORKS INC ↗
  • Who funds BARTLESVILLE CIVIC BALLET INC ↗
  • Who funds OKLAHOMA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PATHS TO INDEPENDENCE INC ↗
  • Who funds HEARTMATTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds YOUNG SCHOLARS OF BARTLESVILLE INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE KIDDIE PARK ↗
  • Who funds GIRL SCOUTS OF EASTERN OKLAHOMA INC ↗
  • Who funds ARTS ALLIANCE TULSA INC ↗
  • Who funds DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON COUNTY SPCA INC ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL RESCUE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ARTS & HUMANITIES COUNCIL OF TULSA INC ↗
  • Who funds GEORGE MIKSCH SUTTON AVIAN RESEARCH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL RESCUE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds BARTLESVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Lyon FoundationBartlesville Communit…Arvest FoundationJeanalee and Charles …Tulsa Community Found…Cresap Family Foundat…Kenneth G and Diana M…The Hardesty Family F…McAnaw Family Foundat…The Ae and Juanita Ri…Zink Family FoundationThe Oxley Foundation
Lyon FoundationOK39× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Lyon Foundation · Bartlesville Community Foundation · Arvest Foundation · Jeanalee and Charles Parsons Foundation · Tulsa Community Foundation · Cresap Family Foundation · Kenneth G and Diana Moon Adams Foundation · The Hardesty Family Foundation Inc · McAnaw Family Foundation · The Ae and Juanita Richardson Charitable Foundation · Zink Family Foundation · The Oxley 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 K S Adams Foundation Co-Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from K S Adams Foundation Co-Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 180%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 23%
  • George Miksch Sutton Avian Research Center Inc: 68% of income from government
  • Youth and Family Services Inc: 23% of income from government
  • Domestic Violence Intervention Services: 15% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
18get no government money at all
6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 48 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 K S Adams Foundation Co-Trust’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