Skip to content
Raymond & Margaret Vicker Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Raymond & Margaret Vicker Trust

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$174k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Human Services$285kEnvironment$180kCommunity Improvement$100kReligion$71kInternational$59kEducation$45kFood & Nutrition$30kPhilanthropy$26kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k6 grants · $29k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ARIZONA LAND & WATER TRUST$50,000
CASEYS CHILDREN$50,000
Individual grant recipient$30,000
CASA ADOBES ROTARY FOUNDATION$15,000
TUCSON FESTIVAL OF BOOKS$5,000
YOUTH ON THEIR OWN$5,000
PATRONATO SAN XAVIER$5,000
RINCON ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION$5,000
CASA DE LOS NINOS INC$5,000
THE CENTURIONS OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$4,000
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 (FY20–24, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%YOUTH ON THEIR OWN: $10k → 15%YOUTH ON THEIR OWN: $5k → 15%YOUTH ON THEIR OWN: $5k → 15%YOUTH ON THEIR OWN: $5k → 15%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 12% of Raymond & Margaret Vicker Trust’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 88% of the giving stays in AZ; by stated purpose, 84%.

Raymond & Margaret Vicker Trustlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$703k · 13 repeat orgs$104k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +44% since the first grant, against +0% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
6

Total granted

$703k
$74k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
+0%

Still filing today

69%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
PhilanthropyHealthArts & CultureEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionOther
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

  • CF
    CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS
    2× · 2020–2021 · $75k · revenue +585%
  • RC
    ROTARY CLUB OF TUCSON FOUNDATION
    3× · 2020–2022 · $45k · revenue +17%
  • RR
    Rincon Rotary Club Foundation
    5× · 2020–2024 · $25k · revenue +44%

Funded once

  • CF
    Community Food Bank Inc
    one grant, 2020 · $30k · revenue -18%
  • MC
    MEXICO CHILDRENS FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2023 · $15k
  • EA
    ESPERANCA ARIZONA LLC
    one grant, 2022 · $15k
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
Arizona Latin-American Medical Association
Unclassified
2
Tucson Scottish Rite Charitable Foundation
—
3
Cancer Support Community Arizona

CSCAZ uplifts and strengthens people impacted by cancer by providing support, fostering compassionate communities, and breaking down barriers to care.

Health
4
Child Crisis Arizona

To provide children and youth in arizona a safe environment, free from abuse and neglect, by creating strong and successful families.

Crime & Legal
5
Arizona Healthiest State Foundation
—
6
The Dons of Arizona
Education
7
La Paloma Family Services Inc

We build relationships that enhance the development of skills, foster a sense of worth and enhance a belief in each child's individual potential.

—
8
Arts Foundation for Tucson and Southern Arizona

The Arts Foundation mission is to advance artistic expression, civic participation, and equitable economic growth of our diverse community by supporting, promoting, and advocating for arts and culture in our region.

Arts & Culture
9
Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum
—
10
Chicanos Por La Causa Inc Cplc

We drive economic and political empowerment.

Human Services
11
Arizona's Children Association

The mission of arizona's children association is to protect children, empower youth, and strengthen families.

Human Services
12
Impact of Southern Arizona

Impact of southern arizona is a private non-profit volunteer based organization which empowers southern arizonans with the resources required to pursue a stabilized and enhanced quality of life.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Casa De Los Ninos; the most unlike its peers is Casey Family Programs. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

15 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. 15 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/15
Grantees still filing
8/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CASEYS CHILDREN: $155,000 · OtherCASEYS CHILDRENSAN MIGUEL OF TUCSON CORPORATION: $71,000 · OtherSAN MIGUEL OF TUCSON CORPORATIONSTEPS OF LOVE: $43,500 · OtherSTEPS OF LOVECASA ADOBES ROTARY FOUNDATION: $30,000 · OtherCASA ADOBES ROTARY FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientRincon Rotary Club Foundation: $25,000 · OtherRincon Rotary Club FoundationMEXICO CHILDRENS FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 · OtherESPERANCA ARIZONA LLC: $15,000 · Other+6 more: $41,500 · Other+6 moreARIZONA LAND AND WATER TRUST INC: $180,000 · EnvironmentARIZONA LAND AND WATER T…CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS: $75,000 · PhilanthropyCASEY FAMILY…THE CENTURIONS: $16,000 · PhilanthropyTHE CENTURIO…ROTARY CLUB OF TUCSON FOUNDATION: $45,000 · Community ImprovementCommunity Food Bank Inc: $30,000 · Food & NutritionYOUTH ON THEIR OWN: $25,000 · Human ServicesCASA DE LOS NINOS: $20,000 · Youth Development
Other$426,000Environment$180,000Philanthropy$91,000Community Improvement$45,000Food & Nutrition$30,000Human Services$25,000Youth Development$20,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetARIZONA LAND AND WATER TRUST INC: $180,000 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetCASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS: $75,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetROTARY CLUB OF TUCSON FOUNDATION: $45,000 over 3y, 5.3% of budgetSTEPS OF LOVE: $43,500 over 2y, 6.4% of budgetCommunity Food Bank Inc: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYOUTH ON THEIR OWN: $25,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetRincon Rotary Club Foundation: $25,000 over 5y, 23% of budgetCASA DE LOS NINOS: $20,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CENTURIONS: $16,000 over 5y, 1.4% of budgetPATRONATO SAN XAVIER: $10,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetLife Circle: $10,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTUCSON FESTIVAL OF BOOKS: $7,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetIntegrative Touch: $2,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

Community Foundation …William and Mary Ross…The Hs Lopez Family F…Arizona Community Fou…Morgan Stanley Global…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation for Southern ArizonaAZ19.6× affinity7 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Southern Arizona · William and Mary Ross Foundation · The Hs Lopez Family Foundation · Arizona Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 Raymond & Margaret Vicker Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Raymond & Margaret Vicker Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Raymond & Margaret Vicker’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