Skip to content

· Private foundation

Margot Skinner Charitable Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$33k
Granted FY2022
1
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$33k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Margot Skinner Charitable Foundation’s FY2022 grant dollars went to Wichita Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2022 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

4
’17
4
’18
4
’19
2
’20
0
’21
0
’22

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2022.

Philanthropy$4.3MEducation$283kHuman Services$82kArts & Culture$71kHealth$43kFood & Nutrition$30kPublic Safety & Disaster$17k
02FY2022 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$32,627
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WICHITA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$32,627
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 (FY17–18, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WICHITA CHILDREN'S HOME: $30k → 16%WICHITA CHILDREN'S HOME: $20k → 16%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$465k · 10 repeat orgs$60k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +99% since the first grant, against +21% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2020, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
4

Total granted

$465k
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+99%
+21%

Still filing today

40%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
Human ServicesArts & CultureFood & NutritionPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • TW
    THE WICHITA CHILDREN'S HOME
    2× · 2017–2018 · $50k · revenue +99%
  • FI
    FOOD IN NEED OF DISTRIBUTION INC
    2× · 2019–2020 · $27k · revenue +131%
  • ALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $17k · revenue +129%

Funded once

  • CV
    COACHELLA VALLEY REPERTORY
    one grant, 2019 · $25k · revenue +21%
  • K
    KCRW
    one grant, 2019 · $12k
  • SA
    SUCCESS ACHIEVED IN FUTURE ENVIRONMENTS
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
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
Kansas City Smartport Inc

Kc smartport is a non-profit economic development organization that works to attract freight-based companies, such as manufacturing, distribution and warehouses, to the 18 county, bi-state kansas city region.

Community Improvement
2
Texas Public Radio

The mission of Texas Public Radio is to engage, inspire and inform, bringing people together to better understand their community and world.

Arts & Culture
3
Valley Vision

Valley vision is a civic leadership organization dedicated to improving the livability of the sacramento region. through research and action, we collaborate on bold, long-term solutions that improve people's lives.

Community Improvement
4
Bionexus Kc

We inspire thinkers from different disciplines to combine their efforts for a common purpose: healthcare innovation.(continued on schedule o)from bioinformatics to cancer research and beyond, we stimulate collaboration and help bring…

Science & Tech
5
Community Wireless of Park City

Kpcw's mission is to serve summit and wasatch counties with local news, information, entertainment, and emergency alerts through its broadcast signal and digital media platforms. the station is also committed to provide its communication…

Arts & Culture
6
Wyandotte Economic Development Council Inc

Promote and strengthen wyandotte county's economy through innovative approaches to programs, partnerships, and leadership in industrial, residential, office, and retail markets.

—
7
Wichita Center for Graduate Medical Education Inc

On behalf of the university of kansas school of medicine-wichita, wcgme administers the graduate medical education program for resident physicians in the city of wichita, kansas. wcgme's involvement in graduate medical education in wichita…

Education
8
The Campbell Institute

Children's institute's mission is to leverage research, practice, policy, and advocacy to shift systems toward justice for families so that all of oregon's children, prenatal to grade 5, have access to opportunity.

Unclassified
9
Center for the Future of Arizona

Bringing arizonans together to create a stronger and brighter future for our state.

Community Improvement
10
The Chicago Community Trust

Building on 100 years of commitment to the Chicago region, The Chicago Community Trust mobilizes people, ideas, organizations and resources to advance opportunity for all Chicagoans.

Philanthropy
11
Westchester Community Opportunity Program Inc

To mobilize and efficiently manage resources through partnerships and collaborations to help the low-income and at-risk populations in the hudson valley region to achieve greater self-sufficiency.

Community Improvement
12
We Are Family Foundation

The we are family foundation celebrates the vision of a global family by creating and supporting programs that inspire and educate people about mutual respect, understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wichita Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Inland Empire Community Foundation. 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

8 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. 8 of the 17 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WICHITA FOUNDATION: $4,269,188 · PhilanthropyWICHITA FOUNDATION+1 more: $20,000 · PhilanthropyWICHITA TOP CHILDRENS FUND: $252,000 · OtherWICHITA T…PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $42,500 · OtherPLANNED P…FAMILIES HELPING FAMILIES: $27,000 · OtherFAMILIES …COACHELLA VALLEY REPERTORY: $25,000 · OtherCOACHELLA…Individual grant recipient: $15,500 · OtherWICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY: $15,500 · OtherKCUR: $15,000 · Other+4 more: $29,250 · Other+4 moreTHE WICHITA CHILDREN'S HOME: $50,000 · Human ServicesFOOD IN NEED OF DISTRIBUTION INC: $27,000 · Food & NutritionALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC: $17,000 · Public Safety & DisasterKANSAS PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE: $9,250 · Arts & Culture
Philanthropy$4,289,188Other$421,750Human Services$50,000Food & Nutrition$27,000Public Safety & Disaster$17,000Arts & Culture$9,250

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWICHITA FOUNDATION: $4,269,188 over 2y, 42% of budgetWICHITA TOP CHILDRENS FUND: $252,000 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetTHE WICHITA CHILDREN'S HOME: $50,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetFOOD IN NEED OF DISTRIBUTION INC: $27,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCOACHELLA VALLEY REPERTORY: $25,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetInland Empire Community Foundation: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC: $17,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetKANSAS PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE: $9,250 over 2y, 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 WICHITA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WICHITA TOP CHILDRENS FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE WICHITA CHILDREN'S HOME ↗
  • Who funds FOOD IN NEED OF DISTRIBUTION INC ↗
  • Who funds COACHELLA VALLEY REPERTORY ↗
  • Who funds Inland Empire Community Foundation ↗
  • Who funds ALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC ↗
  • Who funds KANSAS PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE ↗

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.

National Philanthropic TrustPA9.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Margot Skinner Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Margot Skinner Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 17 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Margot Skinner’s filings →

    More from the funding graph