Skip to content
T-F Foundation-Co Andrew M Wolov Hall Estill Attorneys at a glance

· Private foundation

T-F Foundation-Co Andrew M Wolov Hall Estill Attorneys

Its FY2018 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$25k
Granted FY2018
12
Grants FY2018
5
States reached
$9k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0168% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2018.

Philanthropy$37kHealth$4kHousing & Shelter$2kArts & Culture$1kInternational$500Education$500Religion$420Recreation & Sports$300Other$0
02FY2018 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$353k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$9,272
JEWISH FEDERATION OF TULSA$5,000
UNITED WAY$5,000
Individual grant recipient$1,700
B'NAI B'RITH INTERNATIONAL$1,400
SHERWIN MILLER MUSEUM$1,000
Individual grant recipient$500
MONTESSORI SCHOOL$500
SCHUSTERMAN JEWISH COM CENTER$420
FLAME$400
TULSA JEWISH RET HCC$50
UNITED BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION$30
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–18) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 95% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%SOCIAL ADVOCATES: $2k → 9%UNITED BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION: $30 → 7%UNICEF: $500 → 17%UNITED WAY: $6k → 15%B'NAI B'RITH INTERNATIONAL: $1k → 17%NATIONAL STROKE ASSOCIATION: $200 → 8%ISRAEL'S DISABILITY VETERANS: $400 → 17%UNITED WAY: $5k → 15%B'NAI B'RITH INTERNATIONAL: $960 → 17%JEWISH FEDERATION OF TULSA: $10k → 15%JEWISH FEDERATION OF TULSA: $5k → 15%TULSA JEWISH RET HCC: $4k → 15%SHERWIN MILLER MUSEUM: $1k → 15%SCHUSTERMAN JEWISH COM CENTER: $420 → 15%TULSA JEWISH RET HCC: $50 → 15%TULSA AREA TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $300 → 15%MONTESSORI SCHOOL: $500 → 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$31k · 6 repeat orgs$16k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
6

Total granted

$31k
$12k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+20%
+39%

Still filing today

17%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
PhilanthropyInternationalHealthOther
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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2017–2018 · $12k
  • UW
    UNITED WAY
    2× · 2017–2018 · $11k
  • TJ
    TULSA JEWISH RET HCC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $4k

Funded once

  • UJ
    UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +39%
  • TULSA AREA UNITED WAY
    one grant, 2017 · $500 · revenue +15%
  • UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEFgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $500 · revenue +76%
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 18 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $12,344 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUNITED WAY: $11,000 · OtherUNITED WAYTULSA JEWISH RET HCC: $3,750 · OtherTULSA JEWISH RET HCCMILWAUKEE B'NAI B'RITH NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION-COVENANT HOUSE: $2,360 · OtherMILWAUKEE B'NAI B'RITH NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION-COVENANT HOU…Individual grant recipient: $1,700 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $1,313 · Other+8 more: $4,020 · Other+8 moreJEWISH FEDERATION OF TULSA: $15,072 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF TULSAUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC: $10,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHI…UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $500 · InternationalUNITED BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION INC: $30 · Health
Other$36,487Philanthropy$25,072International$500Health$30

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF TULSA: $15,072 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMILWAUKEE B'NAI B'RITH NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION-COVENANT HOUSE: $2,360 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTULSA AREA UNITED WAY: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL STROKE ASSOCIATION: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION INC: $30 over 1y, 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization T-F Foundation-Co Andrew M Wolov Hall Estill Attorneys funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from T-F Foundation-Co Andrew M Wolov Hall Estill Attorneys. 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 18 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on T-F Foundation-Co Andrew M Wolov Hall Estill Attorneys’ 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