Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Kenneth J Castle Charitable Trust

Its FY2026 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$11k
Granted FY2026still arriving
6
Grants FY2026still arriving
2
States reached
$3k
Largest
01What you fund
0194% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172026.

Recreation & Sports$52kEducation$28kYouth Development$13kPublic Benefit$8kOther$0
02FY2026 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$1,899
Median grant
2
States reached
$201k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF SMITH CENTER$2,893
SMITH CENTER RECREATION C$2,848
FORT HAYS TECH NORTH CENTRAL$1,899
SMITH CENTER AMERICAN LEGION BALL$1,803
GIRL SCOUTS OF KANSAS HEARTLAND$1,000
NEBRASKA TECHNICAL AGRI COLLEGE$949
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 5%. 100% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 5%NEBRASKA TECHNICAL AGRI COLLEGE: $949 → 15%JOHNSON COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $860 → 5%SMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GO: $4k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLL: $3k → 12%CLOUD COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $860 → 13%GIRL SCOUTS OF KANSAS HEARTLAND: $2k → 14%HUTCHINSON COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $861 → 15%SMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GO: $4k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLL: $3k → 12%GIRL SCOUTS OF KANSAS HEARTLAND: $1k → 14%MANHATTAN AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $1k → 20%SMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GO: $3k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLL: $2k → 12%GIRL SCOUTS OF KANSAS HEARTLAND: $1k → 14%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $3k → 11%FORT HAYS TECH NORTH CENTRAL: $2k → 12%SMITH CENTER PEEWEE BASEBALL CLUB: $3k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLL: $1k → 12%CITY OF SMITH CENTER: $3k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLL: $1k → 12%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $3k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLL: $909 → 12%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $3k → 11%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $3k → 11%SMITH CENTER AMERICAN LEGION BALL: $3k → 11%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $3k → 11%CITY OF SMITH CENTER: $3k → 11%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $3k → 11%SC AMERICAN LEGION: $3k → 11%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $3k → 11%SMITH CENTER GIRL SCOUTS: $2k → 11%SC AMERICAN LEGION: $2k → 11%SC AMERICAN LEGION: $2k → 11%SMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GO: $2k → 11%SMITH CENTER GIRL SCOUTS: $2k → 11%CITY OF SMITH CENTER: $2k → 11%SC AMERICAN LEGION: $2k → 11%SMITH CENTER AMERICAN LEGION BALL: $2k → 11%SMITH CENTER GIRL SCOUTS: $2k → 11%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $2k → 11%SMITH CENTER AMERICAN LEGION BALL: $2k → 11%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $2k → 11%SMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GO: $2k → 11%SMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GO: $1k → 11%SMITH CENTER RECREATION C: $1k → 11%SMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GO: $1k → 11%SMITH CENTER GIRL SCOUTS: $1k → 11%GIRL SCOUTS OF KANSAS HEARTLAND: $1k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$101k · 15 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2026, 11 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
5

Total granted

$101k
$5k

Still filing today

7%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • SC
    SMITH CENTER RECREATION C
    10× · 2017–2026 · $24k
  • SC
    SMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GO
    7× · 2017–2023 · $17k
  • NC
    NORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLL
    7× · 2019–2025 · $12k

Funded once

  • SC
    SMITH CENTER PEEWEE BASEBALL CLUB
    one grant, 2021 · $3k
  • PH
    PERRY HIGHLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE
    one grant, 2017 · $645
  • KS
    KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2025 · $335

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field
04the grantee network

1 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 20172026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 1 of the 22 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
1/1
Grantees still filing
1/1
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

SMITH CENTER RECREATION C — $23,998 · OtherSMITH CENTER RECREATION CSMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GO — $16,923 · OtherSMITH CENTER MUNICIPAL GONORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLL — $11,760 · OtherNORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLLIndividual grant recipient — $8,957 · OtherIndividual grant recipientSMITH CENTER AMERICAN LEGION BALL — $7,654 · OtherSMITH CENTER AMERICAN LEGION BALLCITY OF SMITH CENTER — $7,627 · OtherCITY OF SMITH CENTERSMITH CENTER GIRL SCOUTS — $7,406 · OtherSMITH CENTER GIRL SCOUTS+14 more — $18,756 · Other+14 moreGIRL SCOUTS OF KANSAS HEARTLAND INC — $5,639 · Youth Development
Other$103,081Youth Development$5,639

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF KANSAS HEARTLAND INC — $5,639 over 4y, 0.1% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds GIRL SCOUTS OF KANSAS HEARTLAND INC

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Margaret Nelson Castle Vo-TechKS16× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Margaret Nelson Castle Vo-Tech · The Pete Henry Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization Kenneth J Castle Charitable Trust funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2025
202122232425
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%your 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
    1report 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, FY2025

    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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 22 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph