Skip to content
Morris & Ruth B Cowan Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Morris & Ruth B Cowan Foundation Inc

$12k
Granted FY2020
10
Grants FY2020
6
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2020.

Community Improvement$10kYouth Development$9kHealth$6kHuman Services$4kEducation$3kCivil Rights$2kArts & Culture$850International$550Other$0
02FY2020 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$500
Median grant
6
States reached
$1k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RENAISSANCE ENTREPRENEURSHIP$4,500
BOYS GIRLS CLUB OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY$2,500
BOYS GIRLS CLUB OF AMERICA$2,500
GODDARD RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CENTER$500
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND$500
CORNELL UNIVERSITY$350
HIAS$300
Individual grant recipient$200
RALPH BUNCHE INSTITUTE$150
RIVERSIDE LANGUAGE PROGRAM$100
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 (FY18–19, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%KEE-CHA E NAR: $2k → 17%KEE-CHA E NAR: $300 → 17%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

ME
WA
NY
MA
NJ
CA
CO
MD
AL
GA
FL
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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$26k · 8 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +93% since the first grant, against +23% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2020, 2 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
9

Total granted

$26k
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+93%
+23%

Still filing today

63%
44%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $950 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
EducationCommunity ImprovementCivil RightsHuman ServicesCrime & LegalYouth 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

  • RE
    Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center
    4× · 2017–2020 · $10k · revenue +141%
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
    2× · 2019–2020 · $4k · revenue +64%
  • KC
    KEE CHA-E-NAR CORPORATION
    2× · 2018–2019 · $2k · revenue +591%

Funded once

  • TM
    THE MAKEPEACE FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $6k
  • CR
    CAL RIPKEN SR FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2019 · $2k · revenue -8%
  • LM
    LEGAL MOMENTUM
    one grant, 2018 · $350 · revenue +17%
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
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…

Community Improvement
2
Asian Law Caucus

The Asian Law Caucus's mission is to promote, advance, and represent the legal and civil rights of Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities, recognizing that social, economic, political and racial inequalities continue to exist…

Crime & Legal
3
Indigenous Peoples Rights Inc

To lead and coordinate the global initiative to address and prevent criminalization, violence, and impunity against indigenous peoples towards strengthening their collectives, solidarity, and actions.

Human Services
4
United States Naval Institute

Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.

—
5
Twin Cities Diversity in Practice

To attract, recruit, advance, and retain attorneys of color in the twin cities through education and collaboration with member organizations.

Community Improvement
6
Center for International Environmental Law Inc

To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…

International
7
Nijc Nfp

The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) is a leader in advancing immigrant rights through its unique strategy drawing on its legal services to promote legal reform through litigation, advocacy and strategic communications.

Crime & Legal
8
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area

As one of the most enduring civil rights institutions on the West Coast, we work to dismantle systems of oppression and racism, and build an equitable and just society.

—
9
Boston Architectural College

The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.

—
10
International Refugee Assistance Project Inc

Irap is a global legal aid and advocacy organization working to create a world where refugees and all people seeking safety are empowered to claim their right to freedom of movement and a path to lasting refuge. everyone should have a safe…

Human Services
11
National Opinion Research Center

See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…

Social Science
12
Stony Brook Urology University Faculty Practice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southern Poverty Law Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Kee Cha-E-Nar Corporation. 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 21 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
10/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE MAKEPEACE FOUNDATION: $6,100 · OtherTHE MAKEPEACE FOUNDATIONBOYS GIRLS CLUB OF AMERICA: $5,500 · OtherBOYS GIRLS CLUB OF AMERICAGODDARD RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CENTER: $2,000 · OtherGODDARD RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CENTERTHE COOKE SCHOOL: $600 · Other+9 more: $2,300 · Other+9 moreRenaissance Entrepreneurship Center: $10,000 · Community ImprovementRenaissance Entrepreneurship Ce…BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $3,500 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND G…CAL RIPKEN SR FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 · EducationCornell University: $350 · EducationRiverside Language Program Inc: $100 · EducationKEE CHA-E-NAR CORPORATION: $2,300 · Human ServicesNATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC: $1,400 · Civil RightsFRACTURED ATLAS INC: $350 · Arts & Culture
Other$16,500Community Improvement$10,000Youth Development$3,500Education$2,450Human Services$2,300Civil Rights$1,400Arts & Culture$350

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRenaissance Entrepreneurship Center: $10,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $3,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCAL RIPKEN SR FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGODDARD RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CENTER: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC: $1,400 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetLEGAL MOMENTUM: $350 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRACTURED ATLAS INC: $350 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCornell University: $350 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHIAS INC: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRiverside Language Program Inc: $100 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO6.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Morris & Ruth B Cowan Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Morris & Ruth B Cowan Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 88%
  • Hias Inc: 88% of income from government
  • Cal Ripken Sr Foundation Inc: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
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 21 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2020, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Morris & Ruth B Cowan’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