Skip to content
McAnaw Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

McAnaw Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$57k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$85kRecreation & Sports$72kHuman Services$19kEducation$9kHousing & Shelter$8kPublic Benefit$8kYouth Development$8kReligion$7kOther$0
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k9 grants · $7k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$500
Median grant
1
States reached
$335k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRIENDS OF KIDDIE PARK$50,000
WASHINGTON CO SCHOOL SUPPLY DRIVE$2,500
Individual grant recipient$1,500
ELKS LODGE$1,000
BARTLESVILLE ROUND UP CLUB$500
Individual grant recipient$500
BARTLESVILLE FOP LODGE 117$500
ANIMAL RESCUE$500
DEWEY SCHOOL$66
Individual grant recipient$50
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 (FY17–23, $11k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%HOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER: $2k → 14%HOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER: $2k → 14%HOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER: $2k → 14%HOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER: $2k → 14%HOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER: $1k → 14%HOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER: $1k → 14%HOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER: $500 → 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.
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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$167k · 22 repeat orgs$82k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +14% since the first grant, against -35% for those funded once.

22 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 21 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
18

Total granted

$167k
$26k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
-35%

Still filing today

45%
28%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 2% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $56k 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
EducationAnimalsHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentReligionOther
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

  • TJ
    THE JOURNEY HOME INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $64k · revenue +51%
  • HC
    HOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER
    7× · 2017–2023 · $11k · revenue +119%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE KIDDIE PARK
    5× · 2018–2022 · $9k · revenue +944%

Funded once

  • CO
    CITY OF BARTLESVILLE
    one grant, 2019 · $7k
  • PT
    PROJECT TRIBUTE
    one grant, 2023 · $4k
  • WC
    WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF RESERVES
    one grant, 2020 · $2k
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
The Pet Food Pantry of Oklahoma City Inc

Reduce hunger in pets by providing free pet food and pet services to low income pet owners enabling them to keep their companion animal(s) with them. this includes providing routine vaccinations, spaying/neutering, pet supplies and shelter…

Animals
2
Western Oklahoma Family Care Center

The western oklahoma family care center show's god's love by helping families in western oklahoma overcome barrier in their lives in order to help them become contributinng self-supporting citizens

Philanthropy
3
Ashtabula Homeless Shelterinc

Provide emergency shelter and meals, case management and assessment to homeless individuals and families from the ashtabula county and surrounding areas.

Housing & Shelter
4
Bartholomew County Humane Society Inc

Humane treatment of stray dogs and cats

Animals
5
Park County Drop in Center

The mission of the park county drop in center is to assist those who are struggling with behavioral health challenges, addiction, isolation, and homelessness. the center is a safe place for individuals aged 18 and over experiencing mental…

Health
6
Walla Walla Alliance for the Homeless

Our mission is to provide safe/secure low-barrier shelter and food to any adult in need in the Walla Walla region. Our hope is to build upon this foundation to stabilize people's lives while helping them to become self-sufficient. We do…

Housing & Shelter
7
Okmulgee County Humane Society

The Mission Statement for the Okmulgee County Humane Society is to enrich the lives of dogs and cats and provide support to the people who love them when in need - strengthen the overall human-animal bond.

Unclassified
8
Sunshine for Humanity Inc

Homeless Shelter

Health
9
Hope Clinic Inc

To spread the love of christ to the community by providing quality healthcare and spiritual guidance. the clinic's mission is to provide free medical care and spiritual guidance that minister to the whole person. the clinic will provide…

Human Services
10
Community Homeless Outreach and Support Inc

To provide a safe, comfortable environment for women and children seeking shelter and connect them with resources to help change their lives.

Housing & Shelter
11
The Lighthouse Shelter

To provide a homeless shelter to indigents and those facing emergency housing needs. we will provide help to them in securing permanent housing. the organization is built on the christian ideal to love our neighbor which includes persons…

Human Services
12
Animal Rescue Foundation Inc

Animal rescue foundation inc (arf) rescues homeless dogs and cats in the tulsa area and helps them find loving homes. we do this by rescuing homelss animals out of area shelters, accepting owner surrendered pets, placing them in foster…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Agape Mission of Bartlesville Inc; the most unlike its peers is Mary Martha Outreach Inc. 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

17 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. 17 of the 49 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/17
Grantees still filing
9/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE JOURNEY HOME INC: $63,530 · OtherTHE JOURNEY HOME INCFRIENDS OF KIDDIE PARK: $50,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF KIDDIE PARKELDER CARE: $7,400 · OtherCITY OF BARTLESVILLE: $7,000 · OtherSAFE-NOW SEXUAL ASSAULT & FORENSIC EXAMS-NOWATA OSAGE & WA COUNTIES: $7,000 · Other+38 more: $71,770 · Other+38 moreHOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER: $10,500 · Human ServicesFRIENDS OF THE KIDDIE PARK: $8,700 · Recreation & SportsLIGHTHOUSE OUTREACH CENTER OF BARTLESVILLE INC: $6,500 · Community ImprovementBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BARTLESVILLE: $6,500 · Youth DevelopmentTeam River Runner Incorporated: $5,870 · EnvironmentFAMILY HEALTHCARE CLINIC INC: $4,000 · Health
Other$206,700Human Services$10,500Recreation & Sports$8,700Community Improvement$6,500Youth Development$6,500Environment$5,870Health$4,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE JOURNEY HOME INC: $63,530 over 8y, 3.0% of budgetHOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER: $10,500 over 7y, 1.2% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE KIDDIE PARK: $8,700 over 5y, 10% of budgetLIGHTHOUSE OUTREACH CENTER OF BARTLESVILLE INC: $6,500 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BARTLESVILLE: $6,500 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetTeam River Runner Incorporated: $5,870 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetGREEN COUNTRY FREE CLINIC: $4,000 over 6y, 3.5% of budgetFAMILY HEALTHCARE CLINIC INC: $4,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetWASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL SUPPLY DRIVE INC: $2,500 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetWASHINGTON COUNTY SPCA INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNEHEMIAH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $1,650 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBARTLESVILLE PLAYGROUND ASSOCIATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetANIMAL RESCUE FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetWESTSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetPATHS TO INDEPENDENCE INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 THE JOURNEY HOME INC ↗
  • Who funds HOPESTONE CANCER SUPPORT CENTER ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE KIDDIE PARK ↗
  • Who funds LIGHTHOUSE OUTREACH CENTER OF BARTLESVILLE INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BARTLESVILLE ↗
  • Who funds Team River Runner Incorporated ↗
  • Who funds Mary Martha Outreach Inc ↗
  • Who funds GREEN COUNTRY FREE CLINIC ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY HEALTHCARE CLINIC INC ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL SUPPLY DRIVE INC ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON COUNTY SPCA INC ↗
  • Who funds NEHEMIAH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds BARTLESVILLE PLAYGROUND ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL RESCUE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE AGAPE MISSION OF BARTLESVILLE INC ↗
  • Who funds WESTSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds PATHS TO INDEPENDENCE 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.

Lyon FoundationArvest FoundationJeanalee and Charles …Bartlesville Communit…Cresap Family Foundat…Bartlesville Regional…Kenneth G and Diana M…K S Adams Foundation …Community Food Bank o…Tulsa Community Found…American Online Givin…Network for Good
Lyon FoundationOK34.8× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Lyon Foundation · Arvest Foundation · Jeanalee and Charles Parsons Foundation · Bartlesville Community Foundation · Cresap Family Foundation · Bartlesville Regional United Way In · Kenneth G and Diana Moon Adams Foundation · K S Adams Foundation Co-Trust · Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma Inc · Tulsa Community Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Network for Good

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 McAnaw Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from McAnaw Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 120%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 19%
  • Team River Runner Incorporated: 19% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
12get 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 · 0–50%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to McAnaw Family Foundation?

Find your warmest path to McAnaw Family Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 49 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 McAnaw Family’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