Skip to content
Ken and Martha Bruner Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ken and Martha Bruner Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$60k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
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.

Human Services$265kFood & Nutrition$58kHealth$36kHousing & Shelter$25kInternational$20kYouth Development$19kRecreation & Sports$5kCrime & Legal$5k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$911k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES$50,000
TARRANT AREA FOOD BANK$10,000
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 (FY17–24, $65k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 46% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 9%PATRIOT PAWS SERVICE DOGS: $10k → 5%PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE: $10k → 10%PATRIOT PAWS SERVICE DOGS: $5k → 5%PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE: $10k → 10%PATRIOT PAWS SERVICE DOGS: $5k → 5%PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE: $10k → 10%PATRIOT PAWS SERVICE DOGS: $5k → 5%PATRIOT PAWS SERVICE DOGS: $5k → 5%PATRIOT PAWS SERVICE DOGS: $5k → 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.
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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$372k · 10 repeat orgs$60k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
8

Total granted

$372k
$60k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
+50%

Still filing today

80%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
HealthHuman ServicesPhilanthropyFood & NutritionCrime & LegalReligionOther
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

  • AC
    ACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
    9× · 2017–2025 · $145k · revenue +150%
  • TA
    Tarrant Area Food Bank
    6× · 2020–2025 · $48k · revenue +26%
  • PP
    PATRIOT PAWS SERVICE DOGS
    6× · 2017–2024 · $35k · revenue +102%

Funded once

  • SP
    SAMARITAN'S PURSEgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $20k · revenue +163%
  • WO
    Wings of a Butterflygraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +50%
  • UG
    UNION GOSPEL MISSION
    one grant, 2021 · $5k
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
Child Crisis Arizona

To provide children and youth in arizona a safe environment, free from abuse and neglect, by creating strong and successful families.

Crime & Legal
2
The Houston Food Bank

Houston food bank's mission is to provide food for better lives. last year we provided access to 136 million nutritious meals in 18 counties in southeast texas through our 1,600 community partners which includes food pantries, soup…

—
3
Christian Family Care Agency Inc

The mission of christian family care is to strengthen families and serve at-risk children in the name of jesus christ. the outcome of our work results in building flourishing families and communities focusing on three pillars: preserve,…

Human Services
4
Childsafe Colorado Inc

Mission: our mission is to break the cycle and heal the childhood trauma resulting from abuse and neglect with specialized treatment, education and community outreach. we believe in a comprehensive, community-based approach to the problem…

Crime & Legal
5
The Christmas Box International

The christmas box international partners with local, national and international communities and groups to prevent child abuse and to improve the quality of life for children, teens and young adults who have been abused, neglected or are…

Community Improvement
6
North Texas Food Bank

To close the hunger gap in north texas by working through over 500 feeding partners to provide access to nutritious food and address the root causes of hunger.

—
7
Goodwill Industries of South Texas Inc

In 2024, goodwill south texas transformed lives through the power of work by offering free job training and support services to individuals with disabilities and other disadvantages. we proudly served 4,532 people during the year.

—
8
City Help Inc of Phoenix

Our mission is to reach in and mine the incredible potential we believe lies within the lives of at-risk youth, the homeless, and needy families of our community by restoring hope and allowing them to dream again.

Human Services
9
Holt International Children's Services Inc

Holt international is a christian organization guided by compassion and the highest ethical standards. we find and support permanent, loving families for children who are orphaned, abandoned, or at serious risk of family separation;…

Human Services
10
Phoenix Children's Hospital Foundation

Phoenix children's hospital foundation supports phoenix children's hospital through fundraising ensuring that the hospital continues to stay on the leading edge of pediatric medicine and is equipped to fulfill its mission to advance hope,…

Health
11
Fresh Start Women's Foundation

The mission of fresh start women's foundation is to provide access and resources that help women achieve self-sufficiency and use their strength to thrive. we do this work in pursuit of our vision to create unlimited opportunities for…

Human Services
12
Ywca Metropolitan Chicago

The ywca is dedicated to eliminating racism, empowering women, and promoting peace, justice, freedom, and dignity for all.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mitchell Swaback Charities Inc; the most unlike its peers is Samaritan's Purse. 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 18 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)
13/14
Grantees still filing
12/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $144,800 · OtherACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICESTarrant Area Food Bank: $47,500 · OtherTarrant Area Food BankTHE LADDER ALLIANCE: $35,000 · OtherTHE LADDER ALLIANCENEW DAY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN & FAM: $15,000 · OtherNEW DAY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN & FAMWings of a Butterfly: $10,000 · Other+3 more: $15,000 · Other+3 morePATRIOT PAWS SERVICE DOGS: $35,000 · Human ServicesPATRIOT PAWS SERV…PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE: $30,000 · Human ServicesPEOPLE HELPING PE…HOPE CENTER 4 AUTISM - FORT WORTH: $25,000 · HealthHOPE CENTER 4 …SUMMER SANTA: $19,000 · HealthSUMMER SANTAST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $11,000 · HealthST JUDE CHILDR…SAMARITAN'S PURSE: $20,000 · ReligionHOOD COUNTY CHILDRENS CHARITY: $10,000 · PhilanthropyMITCHELL SWABACK CHARITIES INC: $5,000 · PhilanthropyST MARY'S FOOD BANK ALLIANCE: $5,000 · Food & NutritionSTREETLIGHTUSA: $5,000 · Crime & Legal
Other$267,300Human Services$65,000Health$55,000Religion$20,000Philanthropy$15,000Food & Nutrition$5,000Crime & Legal$5,000

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 budgetACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $144,800 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetTarrant Area Food Bank: $47,500 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetPATRIOT PAWS SERVICE DOGS: $35,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetTHE LADDER ALLIANCE: $35,000 over 6y, 1.0% of budgetHOPE CENTER 4 AUTISM - FORT WORTH: $25,000 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetSAMARITAN'S PURSE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSUMMER SANTA: $19,000 over 5y, 6.6% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $11,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWings of a Butterfly: $10,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetHOOD COUNTY CHILDRENS CHARITY: $10,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetMITCHELL SWABACK CHARITIES INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetST MARY'S FOOD BANK ALLIANCE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSTREETLIGHTUSA: $5,000 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.

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.

Bnsf Railway Foundati…Communities Foundatio…The Bank of America C…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Bnsf Railway FoundationTX13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Bnsf Railway Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation 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 Ken and Martha Bruner Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ken and Martha Bruner Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%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 · 0–10%
    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 18 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 Ken and Martha Bruner’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