Skip to content

· Public charity

Knight-Swift Charitable Foundation

The Foundation builds charitable capital for those in need, making philanthropic grants and providing volunteer services that contribute to the socioeconomic health and vitality of the communities in which Knight-Swift and its employees live, serve and work.

$188k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$102k
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Human Services$1.9MFood & Nutrition$147kHealth$32kEducation$30kRecreation & Sports$20kHousing & Shelter$12kCrime & Legal$8k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $178,431, the rows itemized in this filing. The $188,431 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $70k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $102k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$732k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHILDRENS MIRACLE NETWORK$102,066
PATSY REEVE FOUNDATION$20,000
ST MARYS FOOD BANK$20,000
JEWISH FAMILY & CHILDREN SVCS$10,000
FRESH START WOMENS FNDN$10,000
TRUCKERS AGAINST TRAFFICKING$10,000
PHOENIX CHILDRENS HOSPITAL$6,365
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 (FY23–24, $40k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%PATSY REEVE FOUNDATION: $20k → 11%PATSY REEVE FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%FRESH START WOMENS FNDN: $10k → 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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.1M · 5 repeat orgs$68k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +35% since the first grant, against +11% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
6

Total granted

$2.1M
$52k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+11%

Still filing today

60%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
Food & NutritionHuman ServicesEducationRecreation & SportsHousing & ShelterHealthOther
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

  • CM
    CHILDRENS MIRACLE NETWORK
    4× · 2021–2024 · $1.8M
  • SM
    ST MARY'S FOOD BANK ALLIANCE
    4× · 2021–2024 · $135k · revenue -4%
  • JF
    JEWISH FAMILY & CHILDREN SVCS
    3× · 2021–2024 · $51k

Funded once

  • SO
    SPECIAL OLYMPICS ARIZONA INC
    one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue +11%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $8k
  • UF
    UTAH FOOD FOR FAMILIES
    one grant, 2023 · $6k
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
Arizona Food Bank Network

Develop solutions to end hunger through food banking, public policy and innovation.

Food & Nutrition
2
Creighton Community Foundation

Creighton community foundation's (ccf) core program "community works" leverages neighborhood schools to support vibrant communities in the poorest parts of urban phoenix, where neighborhoods suffer from poverty- driven disadvantage and…

Philanthropy
3
Impact of Southern Arizona

Impact of southern arizona is a private non-profit volunteer based organization which empowers southern arizonans with the resources required to pursue a stabilized and enhanced quality of life.

Community Improvement
4
Goodwill Industries of Southern Az Inc

Goodwill Industries of Southern Arizona works toward ensuring that all people have the opportunity to reach their potential and contribute to our community. Through quality, evidence-based, workforce development programs; Goodwill…

—
5
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
6
Umom New Day Centers Inc

To end family homelessness by restoring hope and rebuilding lives, so no child will ever have to sleep on the streets.

Housing & Shelter
7
Center for the Future of Arizona

Bringing arizonans together to create a stronger and brighter future for our state.

Community Improvement
8
The Maryland Food Bank Inc

The maryland food bank is a nonprofit hunger-relief organization dedicated to feeding people, strengthening communities, and ending hunger for more marylanders.

—
9
Arizona's Children Association

The mission of arizona's children association is to protect children, empower youth, and strengthen families.

Human Services
10
Southwest Human Development Incorporated

Southwest human development strengthens the foundation arizona's children need for a great start in life.

—
11
San Francisco Food Bank

To end hunger in san francisco and marin counties by soliciting food donations nationally, distributing this food to qualifying public service agencies and neighborhood pantries, advocating for improved government food programs, and…

—
12
Arizona Anti-Trafficking Network

Aatn is a statewide resource that exists to bring solutions to the very real problem of sex and human trafficking in arizona. creating awareness, researching, and training in the most current anti-trafficking methods is the work of aatn…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Mary's Food Bank Alliance; the most unlike its peers is Phoenix Children's Hospital. 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

8 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. 8 of the 13 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHILDRENS MIRACLE NETWORK: $1,830,900 · OtherCHILDRENS MIRACLE NETWORK+4 more: $71,000 · OtherST MARY'S FOOD BANK ALLIANCE: $135,000 · Food & NutritionWIREGRASS AREA FOOD BANK INC: $6,000 · Food & NutritionPATSY REEVE FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 · Human ServicesFRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Human ServicesTRUCKERS AGAINST TRAFFICKING: $30,000 · EducationSPECIAL OLYMPICS ARIZONA INC: $20,000 · Recreation & SportsPhoenix Children's Hospital: $6,365 · HealthWidows Harvest Ministries Inc: $6,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$1,901,900Food & Nutrition$141,000Human Services$40,000Education$30,000Recreation & Sports$20,000Health$6,365Housing & Shelter$6,000

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 budgetST MARY'S FOOD BANK ALLIANCE: $135,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPATSY REEVE FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 over 2y, 4.8% of budgetTRUCKERS AGAINST TRAFFICKING: $30,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS ARIZONA INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPhoenix Children's Hospital: $6,365 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWidows Harvest Ministries Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetWIREGRASS AREA FOOD BANK INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.3× 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 Knight-Swift Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Knight-Swift 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Truckers Against Trafficking: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Knight-Swift Charitable Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Knight-Swift Charitable Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 13 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 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 Knight-Swift’s filings →

More from the funding graph