Skip to content

· Public charity

Norman C Tanner & Barbara L Tanner Charitable Support Trust

This trust is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations described under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code, or corresponding section of any future federal tax code.

$552k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$138k
Largest
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 2025.

Arts & Culture$811kInternational$811kPhilanthropy$811kRecreation & Sports$487kEducation$324k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $28k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $524k
$55,200
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION$138,000
SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT$138,000
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH$82,800
WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY$55,200
UTAH SYMPHONY ENDOWMENT$55,200
GINA BACHAUER INTN'L PIANO FNDTN$55,200
OGDEN SYMPHONY BALLET ASSOCIATION$27,600
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $83k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $74k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $62k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $50k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $48k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $47k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $47k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $39k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $38k → 8%SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT: $138k → 8%WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY: $55k → 9%SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT: $123k → 8%WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY: $49k → 9%SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT: $104k → 8%WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY: $42k → 9%SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT: $83k → 8%WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY: $33k → 9%SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT: $79k → 8%WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY: $32k → 9%SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT: $79k → 8%WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY: $32k → 9%SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT: $79k → 8%WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY: $31k → 9%SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT: $65k → 8%SALT LAKE AREA UNITED WAY ENDOWMENT: $63k → 8%ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION: $138k → 8%ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION: $123k → 8%ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION: $104k → 8%ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION: $83k → 8%ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION: $79k → 8%ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION: $79k → 8%ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION: $79k → 8%ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION: $65k → 8%ROTARY CLUB 24 FOUNDATION: $63k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY ENDOWMENT: $55k → 8%GINA BACHAUER INTN'L PIANO FNDTN: $55k → 8%GINA BACHAUER INTN'L PIANO FNDTN: $49k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY ENDOWMENT: $49k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY ENDOWMENT: $42k → 8%GINA BACHAUER INTN'L PIANO FNDTN: $42k → 8%GINA BACHAUER INTN'L PIANO FNDTN: $33k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY ENDOWMENT: $33k → 8%GINA BACHAUER INTN'L PIANO FNDTN: $32k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY ENDOWMENT: $32k → 8%GINA BACHAUER INTN'L PIANO FNDTN: $32k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY ENDOWMENT: $32k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY ENDOWMENT: $31k → 8%GINA BACHAUER INTN'L PIANO FNDTN: $31k → 8%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.2M · 6 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
0

Total granted

$3.2M
$0

Still filing today

67%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Arts & CulturePhilanthropyOther
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

  • UP
    UTAH'S PROMISE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $811k · revenue -28%
  • RC
    ROTARY CLUB OF SALT LAKE CITY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $811k · revenue -38% · 57% of their budget
  • US
    UTAH SYMPHONY & OPERA
    9× · 2017–2025 · $487k · revenue +18%

Funded once

    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 6 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
    2/4
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    ROTARY CLUB OF SALT LAKE CITY: $811,000 · OtherROTARY CLUB OF SALT LAKE CITYUNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $486,600 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF UTAHWEBER STATE UNIVERSITY: $324,400 · OtherWEBER STATE UNIVERSITYUTAH'S PROMISE: $811,000 · PhilanthropyUTAH'S PROMISEUTAH SYMPHONY & OPERA: $486,600 · Arts & CultureUTAH SYMPHONY & OPERAGINA BACHAUER INTERNATIONAL PIANO FOUNDATION: $324,400 · Arts & CultureGINA BACHAUER INTERNATIONAL …
    Other$1,622,000Philanthropy$811,000Arts & Culture$811,000

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

    25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUTAH'S PROMISE: $811,000 over 9y, 1.7% of budgetROTARY CLUB OF SALT LAKE CITY: $811,000 over 9y, 57% of budgetUTAH SYMPHONY & OPERA: $486,600 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetGINA BACHAUER INTERNATIONAL PIANO FOUNDATION: $324,400 over 9y, 12% 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 UTAH'S PROMISE ↗
    • Who funds ROTARY CLUB OF SALT LAKE CITY ↗
    • Who funds UTAH SYMPHONY & OPERA ↗
    • Who funds GINA BACHAUER INTERNATIONAL PIANO FOUNDATION ↗

    How much its grantees rely on government

    Each dot is one organization Norman C Tanner & Barbara L Tanner Charitable Support Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Norman C Tanner & Barbara L Tanner Charitable Support Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%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
      0get 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 · 0–5%
      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.
      05Through Plinth

      Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

      How do I get to Norman C Tanner & Barbara L Tanner Charitable Support Trust?

      Find your warmest path to Norman C Tanner & Barbara L Tanner Charitable Support 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.

      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 6 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 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 Norman C Tanner & Barbara L Tanner Charitable Support’s filings →

      More from the funding graph