Skip to content

· Private foundation

Parker Gill Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$28k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$10k
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, FY2020 to 2025.

Housing & Shelter$80kHealth$43kHuman Services$3kReligion$1kEducation$390
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$800
Median grant
3
States reached
$3k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Natural State Recovery Center$9,615
Wolfe Street Center$7,925
Individual grant recipient$3,700
Next Step Recovery Housing$2,500
Oasis Renewal Center$1,500
Archway Institute$1,000
Recovery Centers of Arkansas$800
Individual grant recipient$354
New Hope House$300
Individual grant recipient$275
Turning Place$150
Individual grant recipient$100
Individual grant recipient$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 (FY20–22, $796) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%HOPE MOVEMENT COALITION: $446 → 17%HOPE MOVEMENT COALITION: $350 → 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.
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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$109k · 13 repeat orgs$19k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +132% since the first grant, against +5% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
23

Total granted

$109k
$16k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+132%
+5%

Still filing today

38%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesEducationOther
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

  • NS
    NEXT STEP RECOVERY HOUSING
    5× · 2021–2025 · $20k · revenue +132%
  • MR
    M18 RECOVERY INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $1k · revenue +20%
  • WS
    WOLFE STREET FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $873 · revenue +722%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $2k
  • AR
    AVIARY RECOVERY CENTER
    one grant, 2022 · $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
New Life Recovery Services
Health
2
House of Hope

Assisting and housing females in recovery

—
3
Crossroads Recovery House
—
4
Marys Homes Inc

Recovery home

Housing & Shelter
5
Beauty for Ashes Women's Home Inc

Drug addiction rehabilitation program

Health
6
River Bend Recovery

A faith-based, sober living house, for men who are serious about maintaining a life of sobriety from addictive substances.

Health
7
Remnant Ministries Inc

Restore inmates and those addicted back in to society

Religion
8
Davids Hope

To assist individuals recovering from addiction, implement lifestyle changes, gain employment and housing

Health
9
Prodigal Son House

Christian Recovery Home

Health
10
Hope Ridge Recovery Inc

Provide safe haven for recovering women

Health
11
Hope Recovery Center

Post recovery addiction center

—
12
Inside Out Recovery Inc

We will assist the recovering addict in their re-entry into the workplace and a productive life.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Next Step Recovery Housing; the most unlike its peers is Marys House of Restoration. 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

9 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. 9 of the 42 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Natural State Recovery Center: $35,752 · OtherNatural State Recovery CenterIndividual grant recipient: $14,409 · OtherIndividual grant recipientWolfe Street Center: $13,650 · OtherWolfe Street CenterIndividual grant recipient: $5,150 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $4,300 · Other+30 more: $26,176 · Other+30 moreNEXT STEP RECOVERY HOUSING: $20,252 · Human ServicesNEXT STEP RECOVERY…HOPE MOVEMENT COALITION: $796 · Human ServicesRECOVERY CENTERS OF ARKANSAS INC: $6,011 · HealthWOLFE STREET FOUNDATION INC: $873 · HealthNEA DIVINE INTERVENTION INC: $300 · HealthDAUGHTERS OF THE OTHERSIDE: $250 · HealthShalom Recovery Centers: $390 · Education
Other$99,437Human Services$21,048Health$7,434Education$390

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 budgetNEXT STEP RECOVERY HOUSING: $20,252 over 5y, 5.4% of budgetRECOVERY CENTERS OF ARKANSAS INC: $6,011 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetM18 RECOVERY INC: $1,418 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetWOLFE STREET FOUNDATION INC: $873 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetHOPE MOVEMENT COALITION: $796 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetShalom Recovery Centers: $390 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEA DIVINE INTERVENTION INC: $300 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDAUGHTERS OF THE OTHERSIDE: $250 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 NEXT STEP RECOVERY HOUSING ↗
  • Who funds RECOVERY CENTERS OF ARKANSAS INC ↗
  • Who funds M18 RECOVERY INC ↗
  • Who funds WOLFE STREET FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds HOPE MOVEMENT COALITION ↗
  • Who funds MARYS HOUSE OF RESTORATION ↗
  • Who funds Shalom Recovery Centers ↗
  • Who funds NEA DIVINE INTERVENTION INC ↗
  • Who funds DAUGHTERS OF THE OTHERSIDE ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Parker Gill Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Parker Gill Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%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 · 0–10%
    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 Parker Gill Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Parker Gill 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 42 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 Parker Gill’s filings →

    More from the funding graph