Skip to content
Rachel Lyman Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Rachel Lyman Charitable Trust

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.

$799k
Granted FY2025still arriving
30
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$120k
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$1.5MHuman Services$1.5MEducation$1.1MReligion$836kHousing & Shelter$569kArts & Culture$74kPhilanthropy$57kRecreation & Sports$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 30 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k16 grants · $60k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $297k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $441k
$8,824
Median grant
8
States reached
$9.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH$120,326
HIGH SKY CHILDREN'S RANCH INC$80,217
WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH$80,217
ST JUDE'S CHILDRENS RESEARCH HOSPITAL$80,217
GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC$80,217
ST LUKE'S HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER$48,131
CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH$40,109
EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ST BARNABAS$40,109
HOSPICE OF MIDLAND INC$40,109
EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY$40,109
MIDLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC$35,655
THE GLADNEY FUND$22,462
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY$16,846
ALLISON CANCER CENTER$13,952
SENIOR LIFE MIDLAND$8,824
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 (FY18–25, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 34% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ST JOSEPH'S FOUNDATION: $2k → 11%ST JOSEPH'S FOUNDATION: $2k → 11%SUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME: $6k → 11%SUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME: $5k → 11%SUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME: $4k → 11%SUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME: $4k → 11%SUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME: $4k → 11%SUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME: $3k → 11%SUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME: $3k → 11%SENIOR LIFE MIDLAND: $9k → 12%SENIOR LIFE MIDLAND: $8k → 12%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

MN
PA
CA
MD
AZ
TN
OK
TX
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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.6M · 37 repeat orgs$90k to everyone else

37 repeat relationships: 28 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

37
1

Total granted

$5.6M
$41k

Still filing today

41%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $48k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH
    7× · 2018–2025 · $853k · revenue +49%
  • WT
    WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH
    7× · 2018–2025 · $569k · revenue +138%
  • GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC
    7× · 2018–2025 · $569k · revenue +81%

Funded once

  • SL
    ST LUKES EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL
    one grant, 2018 · $41k
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
Scott & White Hospital-College Station

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
2
Scott & White Healthcare Foundation

To foster and support the activities and purposes of Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH), to encourage broad-based public support of the healthcare system and its affiliated institutions, and to advance the medical objectives, including…

Health
3
Baylor University Medical Center

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
4
Baylor All Saints Medical Center

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
5
Baylor Scott & White Medical Center - Centennial

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
6
Baylor Scott & White Medical Centers - Greater North Texas

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
7
Scott & White Continuing Care Hospital

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
8
Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
9
Hillcrest Baptist Medical Center

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
10
Baylor Scott & White Holdings

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
11
Scott & White Hospital-Marble Falls

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
12
Baylor Scott & White Medical Centers- Capitol Area

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Luke's Foundation; the most unlike its peers is The National Federation of the Blind. 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

16 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. 16 of the 40 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
12/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $568,568 · OtherWEST TEXAS BOYS RANCHEPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ST BARNABAS: $284,285 · OtherEPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ST BARNABASHOSPICE OF MIDLAND INC: $284,285 · OtherHOSPICE OF MIDLAND INCCALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH: $284,285 · OtherCALVARY BAPTIST CHURCHST JUDE CHILDRENS RESEARCH: $248,042 · OtherST JUDE CHILDRENS RESEARCHTHE GLADNEY FUND: $159,202 · OtherTHE GLADNEY FUNDEPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY: $131,062 · OtherEPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE: $124,021 · OtherAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: $119,401 · OtherALLISON CANCER CENTER: $116,507 · Other+17 more: $431,974 · Other+17 moreHIGH SKY CHILDRENS RANCH INC: $597,770 · HealthHIGH SKY CHILDRENS RANCH…ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $320,526 · HealthST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEA…ST LUKE'S FOUNDATION: $251,640 · HealthST LUKE'S FOUNDATION+3 more: $56,867 · HealthUNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH: $852,852 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF THE SOU…MIDLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $215,476 · EducationMIDLAND COLLEGE FOUND…GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC: $568,568 · Human ServicesGUIDE DOGS F…SUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME INC: $28,431 · Human Services+2 more: $21,338 · Human ServicesPERMIAN BASIN AREA FOUNDATION: $17,061 · Philanthropy
Other$2,751,632Health$1,226,803Education$1,068,328Human Services$618,337Philanthropy$17,061

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 budgetUNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH: $852,852 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetHIGH SKY CHILDRENS RANCH INC: $597,770 over 7y, 1.8% of budgetWEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $568,568 over 7y, 4.2% of budgetGUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC: $568,568 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $320,526 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetHOSPICE OF MIDLAND INC: $284,285 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetST LUKE'S FOUNDATION: $251,640 over 5y, 2.2% of budgetMIDLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $215,476 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetTHE GLADNEY FUND: $159,202 over 7y, 44% of budgetScott & White Memorial Hospital: $28,431 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetSUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME INC: $28,431 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetHONORHEALTH FOUNDATION: $17,061 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetPERMIAN BASIN AREA FOUNDATION: $17,061 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetSENIOR LIFE MIDLAND INC: $16,765 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND: $11,375 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetST JOSEPH'S FOUNDATION: $4,573 over 2y, 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.

  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH ↗
  • Who funds HIGH SKY CHILDRENS RANCH INC ↗
  • Who funds WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH ↗
  • Who funds GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC ↗
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
  • Who funds HOSPICE OF MIDLAND INC ↗
  • Who funds ST LUKE'S FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MIDLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE GLADNEY FUND ↗
  • Who funds Scott & White Memorial Hospital ↗
  • Who funds SUNSHINE ACRES CHILDREN'S HOME INC ↗
  • Who funds HONORHEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PERMIAN BASIN AREA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SENIOR LIFE MIDLAND INC ↗
  • Who funds THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND ↗
  • Who funds ST JOSEPH'S FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Pevehouse Family Foun…Blankinship 1991 Foun…Walter & Jere Hubbard…Chaparral FoundationThe Fasken FoundationScharbauer Foundation…Warren Charitable Fou…James a Buddy Davidso…Wayne & Jo Ann Moore …Abell-Hanger Foundati…Je and le Mabee Found…Potts and Sibley Foun…
Pevehouse Family FoundationTX20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Pevehouse Family Foundation · Blankinship 1991 Foundation Inc · Walter & Jere Hubbard Family Foundation · Chaparral Foundation · The Fasken Foundation · Scharbauer Foundation Inc · Warren Charitable Foundation · James a Buddy Davidson Charitable Foundation · Wayne & Jo Ann Moore Charitable Foundation · Abell-Hanger Foundation · Je and le Mabee Foundation Inc · Potts and Sibley 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 Rachel Lyman Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rachel Lyman Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • The National Federation of the Blind: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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 40 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 Rachel Lyman’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