Skip to content
Kreilick Family Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Kreilick Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$113k
Granted FY2025still arriving
25
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Housing & Shelter$191kEducation$82kEnvironment$53kYouth Development$51kArts & Culture$42kFood & Nutrition$35kCivil Rights$33kHuman Services$30kOther$0
02FY2025 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k21 grants · $54k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $59k
$2,500
Median grant
7
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DEBORAH'S PLACE$25,000
ZEN CENTER NORTH SHORE$14,000
WILD ROCKIES FIELD INSTITUTE INC$10,000
GENE SLAYS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB$10,000
MASCOUTAH SENIOR CENTER$5,000
FRACTURED ATLAS$5,000
FLATHEAD-LOLO-BITTERROOT CITIZEN TASK FORCE$5,000
O'FALLON AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$5,000
Individual grant recipient$3,000
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PARTNERS PROGRAM$3,000
LOS CEDROS FUND$3,000
ST LOUIS URBAN LEAGUE$2,500
FAMILIES FOR A LIVABLE CLIMATE$2,500
BUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN$2,500
ENTERTAINMENT 2 AFFECT CHANGE$2,500
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 (FY19–22, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 86% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ANGELS' ARMS: $2k → 11%SPECIAL NEEDS FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY LINK: $1k → 8%UNLEASHING POTENTIAL: $2k → 21%UNLEASHING POTENTIAL: $2k → 21%UNLEASHING POTENTIAL: $2k → 21%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

MT
IL
NY
MA
PA
NJ
CA
UT
MO
GA
FL
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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$599k · 38 repeat orgs$135k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +38% since the first grant, against +22% for those funded once.

38 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2025, 20 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

38
38

Total granted

$599k
$116k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+22%

Still filing today

55%
55%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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
EducationEnvironmentFood & NutritionHuman ServicesArts & CultureHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • DP
    DEBORAH'S PLACE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $168k · revenue +130%
  • WR
    WILD ROCKIES FIELD INSTITUTE INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $28k · revenue +226%
  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION
    5× · 2018–2025 · $14k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC
    one grant, 2023 · $12k · revenue +1%
  • AW
    Amazon Watch Inc
    one grant, 2024 · $12k · revenue -19%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HARLEM INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +75%
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
Grist Magazine Inc

Grist is an independent, non profit media organization dedicated to reporting on climate change.

Environment
2
Rogue Climate

Rogue Climate's mission is to empower Southern Oregon communities most impacted by climate change including low-income, rural, youth, seniors & communities of color, to win climate justice by organizing for clean energy, sustainable jobs &…

Education
3
Earthcorps

To cultivate leaders and community partnerships to advance environmental justice.

International
4
New Roots Institute

New Roots Institute is a nonprofit empowering the next generation with knowledge and training to end factory farming.

Food & Nutrition
5
Good Work Institute Inc

The charitable activities of the Good Work Institute are designed to strengthen collaboration; address legacies of unequal power; and encourage a transition to regenerative ecological and social systems.

Human Services
6
Boulder Watershed Collective

The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…

Environment
7
Western Resource Advocates

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization fighting climate change and its impacts to sustain the environment, economy, and people of the West. As the region's go-to experts for more than three decades,…

Crime & Legal
8
Colorado Museum of Natural History

Be a catalyst! Ignite our community's passion for nature and science.

Arts & Culture
9
Transformca dba Transform

Transform works to ensure that people of all incomes thrive in a world safe from climate chaos.

Community Improvement
10
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
11
Natural History Institute

Natural History Institute is organized to provide leadership and resources for a revitalized practice of natural history that integrates art, science, and humanities to promote the health and well-being of humans and the rest of the…

Arts & Culture
12
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Unleashing Potential; the most unlike its peers is Girls On Shred. 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

48 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. 48 of the 83 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
12
Early backer (in before they grew)
46/48
Grantees still filing
32/48
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

O'FALLON AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $43,500 · OtherO'FALLON AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITYGENE SLAYS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB: $34,500 · OtherGENE SLAYS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBARTS MISSOULA: $26,500 · OtherARTS MISSOULAFLATHEAD-LOLO-BITTERROOT CITIZEN TASK FORCE: $25,500 · OtherFLATHEAD-LOLO-BITTERROOT CITIZEN TASK FORCEMASCOUTAH SENIOR CENTER: $17,500 · OtherBACK AT YOU: $13,500 · Other+55 more: $198,466 · Other+55 moreDEBORAH'S PLACE: $168,000 · Housing & ShelterDEBORAH'S PLACESt Joseph Housing Initiative: $9,500 · Housing & ShelterSt Joseph Housing Initiativ…WILD ROCKIES FIELD INSTITUTE INC: $28,000 · EducationWILD ROCKIES FI…Community College Partners Program: $24,000 · EducationCommunity Colle…THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $13,500 · EducationTHE UNIVERSITY …BLUE ROSE COMPASS INC: $12,500 · EducationBLUE ROSE COMPA…AFTER SCHOOL MATTERS INC: $9,000 · EducationAFTER SCHOOL MA…THE CENTER FOR IMPACT COMMUNICATIONS INC: $8,200 · EducationTHE CENTER FOR …+3 more: $7,500 · Education+3 moreWILDERNESS WATCH INC: $17,500 · EnvironmentAmazon Watch Inc: $12,000 · EnvironmentBUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN INC: $5,000 · EnvironmentFAMILIES FOR A LIVABLE CLIMATE: $2,500 · EnvironmentWest Harlem Environmental Action Inc: $2,500 · EnvironmentBACKYARD GROWERS INC: $11,000 · Food & NutritionMISSOULA FOOD BANK & COMMUNITY CENTER: $7,000 · Food & NutritionGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $7,000 · Food & NutritionZEN NORTH SHORE: $15,000 · ReligionTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $12,000 · InternationalNational Economic and Social Rights Initiative: $3,000 · International
Other$359,466Housing & Shelter$177,500Education$102,700Environment$39,500Food & Nutrition$25,000Religion$15,000International$15,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDEBORAH'S PLACE: $168,000 over 9y, 0.5% of budgetWILD ROCKIES FIELD INSTITUTE INC: $28,000 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetCommunity College Partners Program: $24,000 over 4y, 6.1% of budgetWILDERNESS WATCH INC: $17,500 over 9y, 0.8% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $13,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $12,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmazon Watch Inc: $12,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBACKYARD GROWERS INC: $11,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetCENTER FOR WOMEN IN TRANSITION DBA KEYWAY CENTER FOR DIVERSION & REENTRY: $10,500 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetSt Joseph Housing Initiative: $9,500 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetAFTER SCHOOL MATTERS INC: $9,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMISSOULA FOOD BANK & COMMUNITY CENTER: $7,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $7,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAlmost Home: $6,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetMissoula Freestyle Team Inc: $5,750 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetFREEDOM GARDENS: $5,250 over 5y, 91% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL VOTER PROJECT INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN INC: $5,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetNARRATIVE THERAPY INITIATIVE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetUNLEASHING POTENTIAL: $4,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetLUTHERAN CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES OF ILLINOIS: $4,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE OPEN DOOR CAPE ANN FOOD PANTRY INC: $3,966 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGIRLS ON SHRED: $3,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetNational Economic and Social Rights Initiative: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGloucester Education Foundation Inc: $3,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBRYN MAWR COLLEGE: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILIES FOR A LIVABLE CLIMATE: $2,500 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetWest Harlem Environmental Action Inc: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISSOULA BUTTERFLY HOUSE AND INSECTARIUM: $2,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetEMERSON COLLEGE: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetANGELS' ARMS: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCAMP NEW HOPE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSTRING ORCHESTRA OF THE ROCKIES: $1,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetALL-MAGGOT RUGBY CLUB: $1,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetMISSOULA INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSPECIAL NEEDS FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY LINK: $1,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetUNITED WAY OF GREATER ST LOUIS INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Anti-Cruelty Society: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMONTANA DOWN SYNDROME ASSOCIATION: $750 over 1y, 2.9% 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 DEBORAH'S PLACE ↗
  • Who funds WILD ROCKIES FIELD INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds Community College Partners Program ↗
  • Who funds WILDERNESS WATCH INC ↗
  • Who funds ZEN NORTH SHORE ↗
  • Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BLUE ROSE COMPASS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
  • Who funds Amazon Watch Inc ↗
  • Who funds BACKYARD GROWERS INC ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR WOMEN IN TRANSITION DBA KEYWAY CENTER FOR DIVERSION & REENTRY ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HARLEM INC ↗
  • Who funds St Joseph Housing Initiative ↗
  • Who funds AFTER SCHOOL MATTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE CENTER FOR IMPACT COMMUNICATIONS INC ↗
  • Who funds MISSOULA FOOD BANK & COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY ↗
  • Who funds Almost Home ↗
  • Who funds Missoula Freestyle Team Inc ↗
  • Who funds FREEDOM GARDENS ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL VOTER PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds BUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN INC ↗
  • Who funds FRACTURED ATLAS INC ↗
  • Who funds NARRATIVE THERAPY INITIATIVE INC ↗
  • Who funds UNLEASHING POTENTIAL ↗

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.

United Way of Greater…Employees Community F…St Louis Community Fo…Maki FoundationCross Charitable Foun…First Interstate Banc…St Louis Community Fo…Dennis & Phyllis Wash…Commerce Bancshares F…Tides FoundationSilicon Valley Commun…Enterprise Holdings F…
United Way of Greater St Louis IncMO15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 9 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Greater St Louis Inc · Employees Community Fund of the Boeing Company · St Louis Community Foundation Inc · Maki Foundation · Cross Charitable Foundation Attn John R Clark · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · St Louis Community Foundation · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Commerce Bancshares Foundation · Tides Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Enterprise Holdings 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 Kreilick Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Kreilick Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 70%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Emerson College: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
7get no government money at all
9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 83 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 Kreilick Family’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