Skip to content

· Private foundation

Louise Ramer Green Trust Xxxxx9009

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.

$36k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$148kEducation$39kAnimals$39kFood & Nutrition$39kReligion$39kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$4,463
Median grant
6
States reached
$666k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HILL COUNTY MEM HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$4,463
GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE$4,463
NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR FACIAL$4,463
DIVINE WORD MISSIONARIES$4,463
HUMANE SOC OF THE UNITED STATES$4,463
ST MARY'S SCHOOL FREDERICKSBURG TX$4,463
BLINDSKILLS INC$4,463
THE CAPPER FOUNDATION$4,463
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 (FY18–25, $39k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE: $6k → 10%GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE: $5k → 10%GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE: $5k → 10%GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE: $5k → 10%GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE: $5k → 10%GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE: $5k → 10%GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE: $5k → 10%GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE: $4k → 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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$310k · 9 repeat orgs$4k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
1

Total granted

$310k
$4k

Still filing today

44%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • BI
    BLINDSKILLS INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $39k · revenue +16% · 70% of their budget
  • CF
    CAPPER FOUNDATION
    8× · 2018–2025 · $39k · revenue +31%
  • GC
    GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING iNC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $39k · revenue +66%

Funded once

  • HC
    HILL COUNTY MEM HOSPITAL FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2025 · $4k
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

4 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. 4 of the 10 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/4
Grantees still filing
4/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BLINDSKILLS INC: $39,351 · OtherBLINDSKILLS INCHUMANE SOC OF THE UNITED STATES: $39,351 · OtherHUMANE SOC OF THE UNITED STATESDIVINE WORD MISSIONARIES: $39,351 · OtherDIVINE WORD MISSIONARIESCAPPER FOUNDATION: $39,351 · OtherCAPPER FOUNDATIONST MARY'S SCHOOL FREDERICKSBURG TX: $39,351 · OtherST MARY'S SCHOOL FREDERICKSBURG TXHILL COUNTRY MEM HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $34,888 · OtherHILL COUNTRY MEM HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR FACIAL RECONSTRUCTION INC: $29,871 · OtherNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR FACIAL RECONSTRUCTION INCIndividual grant recipient: $9,480 · Other+1 more: $4,463 · OtherGILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING iNC: $39,351 · Human ServicesGILLESPIE COUN…
Other$275,457Human Services$39,351

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBLINDSKILLS INC: $39,351 over 8y, 70% of budgetCAPPER FOUNDATION: $39,351 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetGILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING iNC: $39,351 over 8y, 0.8% of budgetNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR FACIAL RECONSTRUCTION INC: $29,871 over 6y, 0.2% 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 BLINDSKILLS INC ↗
  • Who funds CAPPER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds GILLESPIE COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING iNC ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR FACIAL RECONSTRUCTION INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Louise Ramer Green Trust Xxxxx9009 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Louise Ramer Green Trust Xxxxx9009. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report 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 10 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 Louise Ramer Green Trust Xxxxx9009’s filings →

    More from the funding graph