Skip to content
Lillith & George Burner Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Lillith & George Burner Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$16k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$11k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0182% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Human Services$29kArts & Culture$20kAnimals$20kYouth Development$17kHealth$12kEducation$12kFood & Nutrition$11kReligion$11kOther$0
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
$11,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$513k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
STAYTON CHRISTIAN CHURCH$11,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–23, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%PROJECT OF LIVING HOPE: $3k → 14%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

IL
NY
OR
IA
CA
MO
DC
MS
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.

23%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$37k · 6 repeat orgs$124k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +29% since the first grant, against +2% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
19

Total granted

$37k
$113k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+2%

Still filing today

67%
42%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 31% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $11k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
AnimalsHuman ServicesArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2023–2024 · $10k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2017–2019 · $9k
  • GG
    GUARDIAN GROUP
    2× · 2017–2019 · $7k · revenue -17%

Funded once

  • EA
    ENGLEWOOD ARTS
    one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue -47%
  • BC
    BROWNVILLE COMMUNITY CENTER
    one grant, 2019 · $20k
  • MP
    MELTING POT FOUNDATION USA INC
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue -40%
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
Chain of Hope Kc

Outreach to help animals suffering in the urban core of kansas city.

Animals
2
Kansas City Pet Project

Leading the way in creating a compassionate, safe community for pets and people through progressive lifesaving programs and services, community resources, and educational opportunities.

Animals
3
Spay & Neuter Kansas City D/B/a Pet Resource Center of Kansas City

To decrease pet homelessness, increase pet retention and improve the quality of life for pets through education and supportive services for families in need.

Animals
4
A Life to Live Animal Shelter and Adoption Center

We have a no-kill mission to save the lives of homeless cats and dogs abandoned and/or placed in kill shelters, while also providing life-saving programs and services to keep pets and their people together. through outreach, education and…

—
5
Loving All Animals Inc

To maximize programs intended to stop killing of adoptable animals.

Philanthropy
6
Animal Refuge League of Greater Portland

The Animal Refuge League of Greater Portland nurtures the connection between people and pets to advance animal welfare and improve the quality of life in our community.

Animals
7
Kitty City Kansas Rescue Incorporated

Find homes for homeless cats through adoptions

Animals
8
Cultivate Kansas City Inc

Grow food, farms and community in support of a sustainable, healthy and local food system.

Food & Nutrition
9
The Rescue Project

Our mission is to raise awareness through community education programs of animal overpopulation, disease control, and provide resources for veterinary services in order to help abandoned and neglected animals in kansas city and it's…

Animals
10
Korean K9 Rescue Inc

Korean k9 rescue inc is a non-profit no-kill 501c3 dog rescue organization that saves dogs from the mea trade puppy mills and high-kill shelters in south korea. due to the stigma associated with mixed breed and dog meat farm dogs most dogs…

Animals
11
La Plata County Humane Society

Animal shelter, spay & neuter, humane treatment of animals.

Animals
12
Progressive Animal Welfare Society aka Paws

A champion for animals since 1967, PAWS is a nationally recognized leader - rehabilitating injured and orphaned wildlife, sheltering and adopting homeless cats and dogs, and educating people to make a better world for animals and people.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Project Living Hope; the most unlike its peers is Fix'em Kc. 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

12 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. 12 of the 26 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
6/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BROWNVILLE COMMUNITY CENTER: $20,000 · OtherBROWNVILLE COMMUNITY CENTERSTAYTON CHRISTIAN CHURCH: $11,000 · OtherSTAYTON CHRISTIAN CHURCHIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNORTHWESTERN HOSPITAL OF CHICAGO: $10,000 · OtherNORTHWESTERN HOSPITAL OF CHICAGOIndividual grant recipient: $8,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientKAUFFMAN CENTER OF KANSAS CITY: $7,511 · OtherKAUFFMAN CENTER OF KANSAS CITYART WITHOUT LIMITS: $6,800 · OtherART WITHOUT LIMITSSCION SCHOOL: $6,750 · OtherSCION SCHOOLFRIENDS OF COMBATANTS FOR PEACE: $5,000 · OtherDR CHULE AUH SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $5,000 · Other+6 more: $9,150 · Other+6 moreENGLEWOOD ARTS: $20,000 · Arts & CultureENGLEWOOD ARTSMELTING POT FOUNDATION USA INC: $10,000 · Food & NutritionBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF ALBANY: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentWINGS OF RESCUE INC: $5,000 · AnimalsCLARKSDALE ANIMAL RESCUE EFFORT AND SHELTER: $4,250 · AnimalsFix'em KC: $500 · AnimalsGUARDIAN GROUP: $7,000 · Crime & LegalPROJECT LIVING HOPE: $2,500 · Human ServicesTHE LUNCHBOX FUND: $1,000 · Human ServicesBROWN HOPE: $1,000 · Community Improvement
Other$99,711Arts & Culture$20,000Food & Nutrition$10,000Youth Development$10,000Animals$9,750Crime & Legal$7,000Human Services$3,500Community Improvement$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetENGLEWOOD ARTS: $20,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetMELTING POT FOUNDATION USA INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF ALBANY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetGUARDIAN GROUP: $7,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetART WITHOUT LIMITS: $6,800 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetWINGS OF RESCUE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPROJECT LIVING HOPE: $2,500 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetBROWN HOPE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE LUNCHBOX FUND: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetKansas City CARE Clinic: $850 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFix'em KC: $500 over 1y, 0.8% 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 ENGLEWOOD ARTS ↗
  • Who funds MELTING POT FOUNDATION USA INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF ALBANY ↗
  • Who funds GUARDIAN GROUP ↗
  • Who funds ART WITHOUT LIMITS ↗
  • Who funds WINGS OF RESCUE INC ↗
  • Who funds CLARKSDALE ANIMAL RESCUE EFFORT AND SHELTER ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT LIVING HOPE ↗
  • Who funds BROWN HOPE ↗
  • Who funds THE LUNCHBOX FUND ↗
  • Who funds Kansas City CARE Clinic ↗
  • Who funds Fix'em KC ↗

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 …American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Network for GoodDC7.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Network for Good · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Lillith & George Burner Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lillith & George Burner Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 13%
  • Boys & Girls Club of Albany: 13% of income from government
  • Brown Hope: 6% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get 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 · 0–40%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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 26 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Lillith & George Burner’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