Skip to content
Rotary Zones 21 & 27 Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Rotary Zones 21 & 27 Foundation

To train and educate rotary district officers and leaders (past, elected, and nominated) so they are prepared to lead their district club members in service above self in their communities and communities around the world.

$675k
Granted FY2018
16
Grants FY2018
2
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2018 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k3 grants · $19k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $176k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $481k
$35,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$150k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LEAGUE CITY ROTARY FOUNDATION$100,000
VIDOR ROTARY CLUB$85,000
ROTARY WEST UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$82,500
ROTARY DISTRICT 5890$75,000
ROTARY HOUSTON SKYLINE$73,000
MI LEWIS SOCIAL SERVICE CENTER$65,000
HUMBLE INTERCONTINENTAL ROTARY FOUNDATION ACCOUNT$40,678
DICKINSON FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH$35,000
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY KINGWOOD INC$20,000
NEHEMIAH'S VISION$20,000
MESA-OUTREACH INC$20,000
UNITED METHODIST COMMITTEE RELIEF$20,000
ROCKPORT ROTARY CLUB$20,000
MCALLEN NORTH ROTARY FUND$7,967
ROTARY CLUB OF SPACE CENTER$6,000
02The need
02

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 (FY18–18, $116k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%HUMBLE INTERCONTINENTAL ROTARY FOUNDATION ACCOUNT: $41k → 16%ROTARY DISTRICT 5890: $75k → 16%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 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
Rotary Club of Graham Texas

Grant to organizations or group to benefit the citizens of graham and young county

Public Benefit
2
Rotary International

to provide community as well as worlwide assistance to those in need.

—
3
Rotary International of Houston Heights

To provide humanitarian service, to encourage high ethical standards in all vocations and to help build goodwill and peace in the world.

—
4
Rotary Club of Greater Houston Veterans Texas Usa

To provide and promote community service throughout the Greater Houston area by focusing on the needs of Veterans and their families.

—
5
Rotary Club of Houston

The Club's objective is to Encourage and Foster the Idea of Service as a basis of Worthy Enterprise, and in particular, to Foster the Development of Acquaintance as an Opportunity for Service, High Ethical Standards in Business and…

—
6
Rotary Club of the Woodlands

Community Service

—
7
Hilo Rotary Club Foundation
—
8
Rotary Club of Lake Conroe Foundation

Charitable giving-Community, International & Vocational Service

Education
9
Tomball Rotary Foundation

Provide humanitarian aid to local charities, international aid and scholarships to local high school students

Community Improvement
10
McAllen Rotary Fund

Provide scholarships for high school seniors.Serve as conduit for donor funds for cmminity service.

Education
11
Rotary Club of Kerrville Community Service Fund

To promote humanitarianism, ethics, goodwill peace.

Human Services
12
Los Altos Sunset Rotary Club Endowment Fund Inc
Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rotary Club of Lake Houston Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Nehemiah's Vision Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 16 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)
9/10
Grantees still filing
3/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ROTARY CLUB OF LEAGUE CITY FOUNDATION: $100,000 · OtherROTARY CLUB OF LEAGUE CITY FOUNDATIONROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $85,000 · OtherROTARY INTERNATIONALROTARY CLUB OF HOUSTON SKYLINE: $73,000 · OtherROTARY CLUB OF HOUSTON SKYLINEMI Lewis Social Services: $65,000 · OtherMI Lewis Social ServicesDICKINSON FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $35,000 · OtherDICKINSON FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCHROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $20,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY KINGWOOD INC: $20,000 · OtherUNITED METHODIST CHURCH & ITS AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS: $20,000 · Other+1 more: $6,000 · OtherROTARY DISTRICT 5890 CHARITIES INC: $75,000 · Human ServicesROTARY DISTRICT 5890 CH…ROTARY CLUB OF LAKE HOUSTON FOUNDATION INC: $40,678 · Human ServicesROTARY CLUB OF LAKE HOU…NEHEMIAH'S VISION INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesNEHEMIAH'S VISION INCCYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ROTARY FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Human ServicesWEST U ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION: $82,500 · PhilanthropyWEST U ROTARY…MESA-OUTREACH INC: $20,000 · Community ImprovementMcAllen Rotary Club: $7,967 · Community Improvement
Other$424,000Human Services$140,678Philanthropy$82,500Community Improvement$27,967

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 budgetWEST U ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION: $82,500 over 1y, 24% of budgetROTARY DISTRICT 5890 CHARITIES INC: $75,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetMI Lewis Social Services: $65,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetROTARY CLUB OF LAKE HOUSTON FOUNDATION INC: $40,678 over 1y, 19% of budgetMESA-OUTREACH INC: $20,000 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetNEHEMIAH'S VISION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetRotary International Space Center Rotary Space Center Rotary: $6,000 over 1y, 3.2% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.5× affinity7 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Rotary Zones 21 & 27 Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rotary Zones 21 & 27 Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    2report 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.

    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 16 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2018, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rotary Zones 21 & 27’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