· Charitable trust
Nina Jean Obel Charitable Trust
To support the efforts of charitable christian organizations that qualify as public charities.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $293,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $314,003 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $21,003 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $13k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $120k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $160k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BURNHAM MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL | $100,000 |
| FINISHING WELL MINISTRIES | $60,000 |
| DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY | $30,000 |
| TAYLOR UNIVERSITY | $30,000 |
| DOOR INTERNATIONAL (DEAF OPPORTUNITY OUTREACH) | $20,000 |
| TWIN OAKS CHURCH | $20,000 |
| DENVER SEMINARY | $10,000 |
| THE HOPE CENTER | $10,000 |
| CAMPUS CRUSADE FOR CHRIST | $7,000 |
| HIS MIGHTY WARRIORS | $6,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY21–25, $36k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 83% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
10 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- BMBURNHAM MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL INC6× · 2020–2025 · $340k · revenue +105%
- FWFINISHING WELL MINISTRIES6× · 2020–2025 · $300k · revenue +130% · 29% of their budget
- DTDallas Theological Seminary6× · 2020–2025 · $140k · revenue +39%
Funded once
- DMDISCIPLE MAKERS NETWORKgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue +165%
- GCGRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF PLANO INCone grant, 2024 · $10k
- HGHUNTERS GLEN BAPTIST CHURCHone grant, 2020 · $5k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Christianity Today is a global community inspired by evangelical conviction to advance the stories and ideas of the kingdom of God. Our mission is to elevate the storytellers and sages of the global church.
Global City Mission Initiative is dedicated to cross-cultural evanglism, disciplemaking, church planting among diverse diaspora populations in strategic cities reaching out evangelistically to start multiply churches, training believers to…
North America Bible Institute (NABI) is an evangelical graduate school, made up of students who are diverse in both ethnicity and ministry aims -- but united in great love for Jesus and his gospel. As a graduate school, NABI offers them…
To reach lost people with the transforming Gospel of Jesus Christ
Mobilization of churches in America by taking pastors and laymen on vision and service trips overseas in fulfillment of Jesus command to go ye into all the world, making disciples...
"T-NET" stands for the "Training Network" for Disciplemaking Churches. T-NET is an international Christian training organization. Its mission is "To return the church to its disciplemaking roots, worldwide".
Christian Mission for the United Nations Community is a ministry aimed at leading the head of every nation and other top leaders to faith in Jesus Christ and helping them to walk in dependence upon God as they discharge the…
Grace Global Ministries exists to assist local churches in sending global workers to fulfill the Great Commission.
To Identify, Affirm, Train, and Mobilize Ephesians 4 evangelists to equip the church for evangelism.
Proclaim the gospel worldwide, prepare followers of jesus christ, and propel those into their god given destiny.
Train ministers, lay people and students who are involved at any level of ministry in small or large churches at local, national, and international levels. We train to go into the world and spread the gospel by helping people meet their…
International Biblical Training is a teaching, training and equipping religious ministry. IBT staff provide theological teaching and training for the purpose of making Christian disciples who in turn train and disciple others in…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Global Training Network Inc and the most unlike its peers is Beyond Ordinary Women Ministries. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 18 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds BURNHAM MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds FINISHING WELL MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds Taylor University ↗
- Who funds Dallas Theological Seminary ↗
- Who funds The Hope Center Inc ↗
- Who funds PROBE MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds DISCIPLE MAKERS NETWORK ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S NONPROFIT ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL TRAINING NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds The Center For The Research of Early Christian Documents ↗
- Who funds BEYOND ORDINARY WOMEN MINISTRIES ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Servant Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Nina Jean Obel Charitable Trust funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Nina Jean Obel Charitable Trust?
Find your warmest path to Nina Jean Obel Charitable Trust 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.