Skip to content
Kvetko Family Foundation Inc Colleen M & Kirk J Kvetko Co-Trustees at a glance

· Private foundation

Kvetko Family Foundation Inc Colleen M & Kirk J Kvetko Co-Trustees

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.

$48k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$25k
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$340kHealth$14kReligion$14kAnimals$12kPhilanthropy$2kRecreation & Sports$1kHuman Services$1k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $3k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
$19,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$665k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DIXIE UNIVERSITY$25,000
UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY$19,500
ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION$2,000
SOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%TUNNELS TO TOWERS: $1k → 11%NATIONAL FOOTBALL FOUNDATION UTAH CHAPTER: $1k → 14%GARGIULO EDUCATION CENTER: $5k → 10%ST JUDE'S CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: $2k → 17%PAWS FOR LIFE: $4k → 5%SOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH: $3k → 8%SOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH: $3k → 10%YMCA - LAKE COUNTY: $1k → 9%ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION: $2k → 13%ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION: $2k → 17%FNBGC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $1k → 10%PAWS FOR LIFE: $3k → 5%SOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH: $1k → 8%SOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH: $3k → 10%ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION: $2k → 13%ALS ASSOCIATION NORTHERN OHIO CHAPTER: $1k → 17%FNBGC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $500 → 10%PAWS FOR LIFE: $2k → 5%SOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH: $2k → 10%ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION: $2k → 13%ALS ASSOCIATION NORTHERN OHIO CHAPTER: $1k → 17%GARGIULO EDUCATION CENTER: $6k → 10%PAWS FOR LIFE: $2k → 5%SOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH: $1k → 10%ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION: $2k → 13%ALS ASSOCIATION NORTHERN OHIO CHAPTER: $500 → 17%FNBGC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $500 → 10%PAWS FOR LIFE: $2k → 5%SOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH: $1k → 10%ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION: $1k → 13%AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIP: $1k → 10%SOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH: $1k → 10%UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY: $85k → 10%UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY: $33k → 10%DIXIE TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $31k → 10%DIXIE UNIVERSITY: $29k → 10%DIXIE UNIVERSITY: $25k → 10%UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY: $20k → 10%UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY: $18k → 10%DIXIE UNIVERSITY: $16k → 10%DIXIE UNIVERSITY: $16k → 10%DIXIE TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $15k → 10%DIXIE UNIVERSITY: $15k → 10%DIXIE UNIVERSITY: $13k → 10%DIXIE TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $12k → 10%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$377k · 9 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
6

Total granted

$377k
$6k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+392%

Still filing today

44%
33%

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
EducationHealthAnimalsOther
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

  • UT
    UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY
    4× · 2022–2025 · $156k
  • DU
    DIXIE UNIVERSITY
    6× · 2017–2025 · $114k
  • DT
    Dixie Technical College
    3× · 2022–2024 · $58k

Funded once

  • SJ
    ST JUDE'S CHILDRENS HOSPITAL
    one grant, 2021 · $2k
  • YL
    YMCA - LAKE COUNTY
    one grant, 2019 · $1k
  • NF
    NATIONAL FOOTBALL FOUNDATION UTAH CHAPTER
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 15 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/7
Grantees still filing
3/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY: $155,500 · OtherUTAH TECH UNIVERSITYDIXIE UNIVERSITY: $113,600 · OtherDIXIE UNIVERSITYSOUTH MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH: $13,500 · Other+6 more: $15,500 · OtherDixie Technical College: $58,000 · EducationDixie Technical Coll…NORTH NAPLES EDUCATION CENTER INC: $11,000 · EducationNORTH NAPLES EDUCATI…+1 more: $1,000 · EducationPAWS FOR LIFE: $11,500 · AnimalsTHE ALS ASSOCIATION NORTHERN OHIO CHAPTER: $2,500 · HealthFOREVER FROSTY FOUNDATION INC: $500 · Health
Other$298,100Education$70,000Animals$11,500Health$3,000

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 budgetPAWS FOR LIFE: $11,500 over 5y, 1.5% of budgetNORTH NAPLES EDUCATION CENTER INC: $11,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetTHE ALS ASSOCIATION NORTHERN OHIO CHAPTER: $2,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetFNBGC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOREVER FROSTY FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 1.0% 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 Dixie Technical College ↗
  • Who funds PAWS FOR LIFE ↗
  • Who funds NORTH NAPLES EDUCATION CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds THE ALS ASSOCIATION NORTHERN OHIO CHAPTER ↗
  • Who funds FNBGC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds FOREVER FROSTY FOUNDATION INC ↗

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.

Network for GoodFidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Network for GoodDC8.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Network for Good · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Kvetko Family Foundation Inc Colleen M & Kirk J Kvetko Co-Trustees funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Kvetko Family Foundation Inc Colleen M & Kirk J Kvetko Co-Trustees. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • North Naples Education Center Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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, 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 15 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 Kvetko Family Foundation Inc Colleen M & Kirk J Kvetko Co-Trustees’ 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