· Public charity
Suzanne & Walter Scott Foundation
The mission of the foundation is to distribute funds for charitable purposes in the areas of civic, cultural, health, education, and social services.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k35 grants · $950k
- $50k–250k16 grants · $983k
- $250k+8 grants · $24M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION | $7,516,624 |
| HASTINGS COLLEGE FOUNDATION | $5,903,944 |
| COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $3,914,500 |
| AVENUE SCHOLARS FOUNDATION | $2,230,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA - OMAHA | $1,500,303 |
| METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION | $1,308,626 |
| CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY | $1,075,556 |
| WAYNE STATE FOUNDATION | $300,000 |
| MADONNA SCHOOL | $153,000 |
| OMAHA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $75,000 |
| SIENA FRANCIS HOUSE | $70,000 |
| OPEN DOOR MISSION | $67,000 |
| PLATTE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH | $60,000 |
| STEPHEN CENTER | $58,000 |
| YOUTH EMERGENCY SERVICES INC | $50,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY19–24, $3.7M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +36% since the first grant, against +0% for the ones you funded once.
74 repeat relationships — 53 still active in FY2024, 21 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $237k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- UOUNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION6× · 2019–2024 · $45M · revenue +39%
- HCHASTINGS COLLEGE3× · 2021–2024 · $6.5M · revenue +24%
- TMTEAMMATES MENTORING PROGRAM4× · 2019–2024 · $5.0M · revenue +141% · 68% of their budget
Funded once
- ALAMY L SCOTT FAMILY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $5.0M · revenue -53% · 83% of their budget
- DFDIXON FAMILY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $5.0M · revenue -49% · 88% of their budget
- LDLORI & DAVID SCOTT FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $5.0M · revenue -64% · 91% of their budget
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
One omaha empowers people where they live with education, training, and engagement to develop thriving neighborhoods.
The nebraska community foundation unleashes abundant local assets, inspires charitable giving, and connects ambitious people to build stronger communities and a greater nebraska.
The mission of oedc is to implement economic development projects, housing, and community revitalization programs that create jobs, business ownership opportunities and other economic benefits for area residents.
Health care services for the people of western nebraska and eastern wyoming.
To increase business, employment, and investment in the greater omaha area.
The council of indepependent nebraska colleges foundation exists to provide operating funds and scholarship support for students attending nebraska's independent institutions of excellence.
Mission: community action of nebraska strives to alleviate poverty through enhancing program development, providing technical assistance, and advocating public policy to support all community action agencies in nebraska.
Our mission is to provide ownership opportunities through public and private partnerships, financing, and technical assistance. by working collaboratively, we aim to expand access to capital in underserved communities, empowering…
The mission of the omaha parks foundation is to improve, promote, preserve, protect, and support omaha's parks and recreation system. we engage in initiatives that make our parks system more accessible, inclusive, and beneficial to all…
The nmu foundation will establish and foster relationships to generate resources that benefit the strategic goals of northern michigan university.
To promote credit unions in nebraska
End hunger together.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Heritage Services and the most unlike its peers is Clear Blue Sea. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 33 years old; the field is 23. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 17% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 9% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
140 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 140 of the 144 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HASTINGS COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds TEAMMATES MENTORING PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds AMY L SCOTT FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DIXON FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LORI & DAVID SCOTT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PARKER FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AVENUE SCHOLARS ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY INFORMATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds Creighton University ↗
- Who funds LAKE CUNNINGHAM DEVELOPMENT TRUST ↗
- Who funds Omaha Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKA PHILANTHROPIC TRUST ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKA HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds SHARE OMAHA ↗
- Who funds HORATIO ALGER ASSN OF DISTINGUISHED AMERICANS INC ↗
- Who funds OMAHA ZOO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WAYNE STATE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds KIDS CAN COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds YMCA OF GREATER OMAHA ↗
- Who funds Greater Norfolk Economic Development Foundation ↗
- Who funds OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ONEWORLD COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS INC ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HEART MINISTRY CENTER ↗
- Who funds PROJECT HARMONY ↗
- Who funds OMAHA DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HERITAGE SERVICES ↗
- Who funds HEARTLAND HOPE MISSION ↗
- Who funds PROJECT HOUSEWORKS ↗
- Who funds SIENA FRANCIS HOUSE ↗
- Who funds HEARTLAND FAMILY SERVICE ↗
- Who funds COUNCIL BLUFFS SOCCER CLUB ↗
- Who funds WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS ↗
- Who funds BLUEPRINT NEBRASKA ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK FOR THE HEARTLAND ↗
- Who funds OMAHA SPORTS COMMISSION ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Lozier Foundation · The Sherwood Foundation · Robert B Daugherty Foundation · The Hawks Foundation · Mutual of Omaha Foundation · Peter Kiewit Foundation · The Charles and Mary Heider Family Foundation · Leland J & Dorothy H Olson Charitable Foundation · Nebraska Community Foundation · United Way of the Midlands · Weitz Family Foundation · Immanuel Community Vision Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Suzanne & Walter Scott Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.