Skip to content
Scott Community Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Community foundation

Scott Community Foundation

Preserve local wealth so the communities in and around Scott County, Kansas will forever remain attractive places to live, work and raise a family.

$1.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
27
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$172k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$1.3MReligion$568kRecreation & Sports$404kPublic Benefit$279kHealth$237kPublic Safety & Disaster$125kCrime & Legal$107kHuman Services$103kOther$0
02FY2025 · 27 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 27 grants below total $689,501, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,501,352 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $811,851 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k8 grants · $54k
  • $10k–50k16 grants · $291k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $344k
$12,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
USD #466$172,000
First National Bank$87,575
Scott Community High School$84,886
First United Methodist Church$35,870
Scott County Hospital$35,007
Scott County Free Fair$29,023
Security State Bank$26,794
Scott County VIP Inc$20,033
Camp Christy$16,325
Individual grant recipient$16,000
Western State Bank$15,862
Individual grant recipient$14,566
Scott City Christian School$14,048
Scott Community Golf Course$12,000
Western Kansas Child Advocacy Center$11,825
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 (FY17–21, $27k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%RUSSELL CHILD DEVELOPMENT: $8k → 12%RUSSELL CHILD DEVELOPMENT: $5k → 12%RUSSELL CHILD DEVELOPMENT: $5k → 12%PARK LANE NURSING HOME: $10k → 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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.6M · 35 repeat orgs$593k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against +15% for those funded once.

35 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2025, 17 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

35
33

Total granted

$3.6M
$393k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+15%

Still filing today

26%
12%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $200k 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
Human ServicesRecreation & SportsHealthCrime & LegalReligionEducationOther
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

  • SF
    SPENCER FLIGHT & EDUCATION CENTER I
    5× · 2019–2024 · $78k · revenue +543% · 56% of their budget
  • WK
    Western Kansas Child Advocacy Center
    5× · 2018–2025 · $68k · revenue +19%
  • SC
    SCOTT COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC
    5× · 2017–2025 · $50k · revenue +59%

Funded once

  • SC
    SCOTT CITY AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    one grant, 2022 · $38k · revenue -13% · 27% of their budget
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $33k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $30k
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 County Agricultural Horticultural Association Inc
Recreation & Sports
2
Greater Scott County Chamber of Commerce

Promote commerce and public welfare.

—
3
Scott Community Foundation

Preserve local wealth so the communities in and around Scott County, Kansas will forever remain attractive places to live, work and raise a family.

Philanthropy
4
Scott Hospital Foundation

To provide funding to Scott County Hospital, Scott City, Kansas through independent fundraising activities.

Health
5
Scott County Emergency and Rescue Squad

Rescue in emergency accidents

Public Safety & Disaster
6
Scott County Transit System Inc

Public transportation

—
7
Scott County Historical Society Inc

Preserve history

—
8
South Kansas City Chamber of Commerce

To promote area commerce

—
9
Scott Community College Foundation

Organized and operated exclusively for charitable, scientific and educational purposes. solicits funds and other gifts.

—
10
Scott County Housing Council

Raise and distribute funds and other resources to support housing in the scott and rock island county area.

Housing & Shelter
11
Southeast Kansas Career and Technical Education Center of Crawf

Operation of career and technical education facility in southeast kansas

Education
12
Sixty Plus Club of Sh Co Ks Inc

Senior center

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Scott County Rest Home Inc; the most unlike its peers is Stepping Up Inc. 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

14 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. 14 of the 78 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
11/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

USD 466 Scott County: $1,300,610 · OtherUSD 466 Scott CountyCITY OF SCOTT CITY: $255,610 · OtherCITY OF SCOTT CITYUNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $207,626 · OtherUNITED METHODIST CHURCHUSD #466: $177,225 · OtherSCOTT COUNTY: $159,626 · OtherSCOTT COUNTY HOSPITAL INC: $148,817 · OtherSCOTT COMMUNITY THRIFT STORE-BREADBASKET: $147,561 · Other+62 more: $1,471,464 · Other+62 moreSPENCER FLIGHT & EDUCATION CENTER I: $77,500 · Recreation & SportsSCOTT COMMUNITY GOLF COURSE INC: $33,800 · Recreation & SportsSTEPPING UP INC: $97,280 · HealthWestern Kansas Child Advocacy Center: $68,370 · Crime & LegalLane County Community Foundation: $40,254 · PhilanthropyTHE RUSSELL CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC: $17,589 · Human ServicesSCOTT COUNTY REST HOME INC: $9,500 · Human ServicesSCOTT CITY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL: $26,540 · ReligionTRINITY ACADEMY INCORPORATED: $14,940 · Education
Other$3,868,539Recreation & Sports$111,300Health$97,280Crime & Legal$68,370Philanthropy$40,254Human Services$27,089Religion$26,540Education$14,940

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSTEPPING UP INC: $97,280 over 4y, 24% of budgetSPENCER FLIGHT & EDUCATION CENTER I: $77,500 over 5y, 56% of budgetWestern Kansas Child Advocacy Center: $68,370 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetSCOTT COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $50,078 over 5y, 14% of budgetLane County Community Foundation: $40,254 over 2y, 27% of budgetSCOTT CITY AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $37,715 over 1y, 27% of budgetSCOTT COMMUNITY GOLF COURSE INC: $33,800 over 3y, 7.5% of budgetSCOTT COUNTY ARTS COUNCIL INC: $28,800 over 4y, 22% of budgetTHE RUSSELL CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC: $17,589 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTRINITY ACADEMY INCORPORATED: $14,940 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSCOTT COUNTY REST HOME INC: $9,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSCOTT COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE INC: $5,500 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetHEADQUARTERS KANSAS INC: $5,275 over 1y, 1.9% 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 STEPPING UP INC ↗
  • Who funds SPENCER FLIGHT & EDUCATION CENTER I ↗
  • Who funds Western Kansas Child Advocacy Center ↗
  • Who funds SCOTT COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds Lane County Community Foundation ↗
  • Who funds SCOTT CITY AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
  • Who funds SCOTT COMMUNITY GOLF COURSE INC ↗
  • Who funds SCOTT COUNTY ARTS COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds SCOTT CITY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds THE RUSSELL CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC ↗

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.

Western Kansas Commun…Amazonsmile Foundation
Western Kansas Community FoundationKS13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Western Kansas Community Foundation · 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 Scott Community Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Scott Community Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 78 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 Scott’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