Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

L & W Charitable Foundation

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.

$1.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$600k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Religion$4.2MYouth Development$631kInternational$211kHealth$10kHuman Services$9k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $275k
  • $250k+2 grants · $870k
$60,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$4.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CAMP MATZVIC INC$600,000
QRBC$270,000
ASIAN CAMPUS CHURCH$85,000
DAYSPRING BIBLE COLLEGE & SEMINARY$80,000
DAYSPRING BAPIST CHURCH$60,000
PLANTATION BAPTIST CHURCH$50,000
CROSSROADS BAPIST CHURCH$20,000
PIONEERS$10,000
MINISTRY DEVELOPERS NETWORK$9,000
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:

Your human-services grants (FY20–20, $9k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Beacon Place: $9k → 8%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.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 100% of L & W Charitable Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 79% of the giving stays in IL; read by stated purpose it is 0% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

L & W Charitable Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$4.5M · 9 repeat orgs$617k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
6

Total granted

$4.5M
$258k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+9%

Still filing today

33%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $359k 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
EducationReligionPhilanthropyHealthHuman ServicesOther

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

  • QR
    QUENTIN ROAD BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.5M
  • PB
    PLANTATION BAPTIST CHURCH
    8× · 2017–2025 · $845k
  • AC
    ASIAN CAMPUS CHURCH
    9× · 2017–2025 · $720k

Funded once

  • IG
    In Grace Ministries
    one grant, 2021 · $200k · revenue +9%
  • BB
    BELMONT BIBLE CHURCH
    one grant, 2021 · $18k
  • SU
    STUF UNITED FUND INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $11k · revenue +88%

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

04Your field
05the grantee network

7 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 19 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
3/7
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

QUENTIN ROAD BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH — $1,455,000 · OtherQUENTIN ROAD BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCHPLANTATION BAPTIST CHURCH — $845,000 · OtherPLANTATION BAPTIST CHURCHASIAN CAMPUS CHURCH — $720,000 · OtherASIAN CAMPUS CHURCHCAMP MATZIV INC — $625,000 · OtherCAMP MATZIV INCQRBC — $270,000 · OtherQRBCDAYSPRING BIBLE COLLEGE & — $180,000 · Other+8 more — $238,500 · Other+8 moreDayspring Bible College & Seminary Inc — $512,000 · EducationDayspring B…In Grace Ministries — $200,000 · ReligionSTUF UNITED FUND INC — $11,000 · PhilanthropyRandom Acts of Flowers — $10,000 · HealthThe Beacon Place NFP — $9,397 · Human Services
Other$4,333,500Education$512,000Religion$200,000Philanthropy$11,000Health$10,000Human Services$9,397

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCAMP MATZIV INC — $625,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetDayspring Bible College & Seminary Inc — $512,000 over 6y, 9.6% of budgetIn Grace Ministries — $200,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetSTUF UNITED FUND INC — $11,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetRandom Acts of Flowers — $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetThe Beacon Place NFP — $9,397 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetBy The Hand Club For Kids — $5,500 over 2y, 0.0% 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 CAMP MATZIV INC
  • Who funds Dayspring Bible College & Seminary Inc
  • Who funds In Grace Ministries
  • Who funds STUF UNITED FUND INC
  • Who funds Random Acts of Flowers
  • Who funds The Beacon Place NFP
  • Who funds By The Hand Club For Kids

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.

Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA7.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 L & W Charitable Foundation 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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 19 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph