Skip to content
The Charles & Peggy Stephenson Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Charles & Peggy Stephenson Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$9.8M
Granted FY2024still arriving
44
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$9.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$17MHealth$4.4MArts & Culture$4.2MPhilanthropy$3.3MReligion$2.1MHuman Services$1.7MCivil Rights$1.2MEnvironment$594kOther$0
02FY2024 · 44 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k8 grants · $34k
  • $10k–50k32 grants · $568k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $208k
  • $250k+1 grant · $9.0M
$10,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$23M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OU FOUNDATION$9,009,180
GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION$100,000
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY$57,975
SALVATION ARMY$50,000
FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES$48,260
GLOBAL GARDENS$45,000
TULSA HISTORICAL SOCIETY$41,500
INDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL BSA$36,250
PHILBROOK MUSEUM OF ART$31,034
STAND IN THE GAP MINISTRIES$25,000
DEAN MCGEE EYE INSTITUTE$25,000
GILCREASE MUSEUM$25,000
OKLAHOMA HALL OF FAME$25,000
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$25,000
MUDDY PAWS PETS HELPING PEOPLE$20,000
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 (FY17–24, $1.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MOUNT SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM: $10k → 17%HELPING HANDS MINISTRIES: $10k → 13%TULSA BOYS' HOME: $10k → 15%TULSA BOYS HOME: $5k → 15%TULSA BOYS HOME: $5k → 15%JOHN 316 MISSION: $2k → 15%AMERICAN THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER: $5k → 15%JOHN 316 MISSION: $1k → 15%JOHN 316 MISSION: $1k → 15%DAYSPRING VILLA: $1k → 15%HELPING HANDS MINISTRY: $10k → 15%HELPING HANDS MINISTRY: $10k → 15%HELPING HANDS MINISTRY: $10k → 15%HELPING HANDS MINISTRY: $10k → 15%PATHWAYS ADULT LEARNING CENTER: $10k → 15%PATHWAYS ADULT LEARNING CENTER: $10k → 15%EASTERN OKLAHOMA DONATED DENTAL SERVICES: $5k → 15%EASTERN OKLAHOMA DONATED DENTAL SERVICES: $5k → 15%EASTERN OKLAHOMA DONATED DENTAL SERVICES: $5k → 15%CLAREHOUSE: $8k → 15%DVIS: $10k → 15%DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SERVICES: $8k → 15%DVIS: $5k → 15%STAND IN THE GAP MINISTRIES: $25k → 15%STAND IN THE GAP MINISTRIES: $10k → 15%STAND IN THE GAP MINISTRIES: $10k → 15%STAND IN THE GAP MINISTRIES: $10k → 15%STAND IN THE GAP MINISTRIES: $10k → 15%ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF TULSA: $5k → 15%FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $270k → 15%FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $270k → 15%FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $267k → 15%FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $210k → 15%FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $75k → 15%FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $48k → 15%FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $14k → 15%FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $10k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MT
NY
MA
WY
OH
CA
UT
KS
OK
GA
TX
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 7% of The Charles & Peggy Stephenson Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 95% of the giving stays in OK; by stated purpose, 97%.

The Charles & Peggy Stephenson Family Foundationlessmore 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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$30M · 57 repeat orgs$2.9M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against +37% for those funded once.

57 repeat relationships: 37 still active in FY2024, 20 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

57
45

Total granted

$30M
$2.8M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
+37%

Still filing today

74%
47%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $82k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesHealthArts & CultureEducationPhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • FC
    Family & Childrens Services Inc
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +221%
  • DEAN MCGEE EYE INSTITUTE
    4× · 2018–2024 · $502k · revenue +1%
  • BD
    Bozeman Deaconess Foundation
    5× · 2017–2021 · $403k · revenue +1%

Funded once

  • OU
    OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $1.0M
  • PP
    PARKSIDE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL
    one grant, 2018 · $1.0M
  • TA
    TULSA AREA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $500k
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
Tulsa Regional Chamber (Fka Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce)

The tulsa regional chamber transforms the tulsa region by attracting and retaining employers, talent and tourism for long-term prosperity.

—
2
Goodwill Industries of Tulsa Inc

Goodwill empowers people to reach their full potential through work opportunities, training, and support services.

Employment
3
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tulsa

Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tulsa provides essential services that remove barriers, strengthen families, and promote healing when children need healthcare.

—
4
Housing Partners of Tulsa

To provide a wide-range of affordable housing options for low and moderate income tulsans and to promote programs leading to self-sufficiency and home ownership.

Housing & Shelter
5
United Way of Central Oklahoma Inc

United way of central oklahoma is committed to connecting people and resources to improve the well being of those in our community.

Philanthropy
6
Oklahoma City Housing Services Redevelopment Corporation

To revitalize urban oklahoma city neighborhoods and create affordable housing opportunities by rehabilitating historic homes, constructing new homes, and increasing community investment through home ownership.

Housing & Shelter
7
Ywca Tulsa Inc

Ywca is dedicated to eliminating racism, empowering women and promoting peace, justice, freedom, and dignity for all.

Human Services
8
Indian Health Care Resource Center Inc

To empower the american indian through exceptional healthcare.

Health
9
Tulsa Spca

The Tulsa SPCA's mission is to improve the lives of dogs and cats, and their human companions.

Animals
10
Tulsa Casa Inc

Tulsa casa is organized to speak for the best interests of abused and neglected children in court. we promote and support volunteer representation for the children in an effort to provide each child a safe, permanent, nurturing home.

Civil Rights
11
Tulsa Legacy Charter School

To prepare students for college through a rigorous arts infused program.

Education
12
Trinity Legal Clinic of Oklahoma

Trinity legal clinic of oklahoma inc is an oklahoma not-for-profit corporation whose mission is to answer god's call to seek justice for the poor. in an effort to address the overwhelming need for legal assistance to the poor, trinity…

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mental Health Association in Tulsa Inc dba Mental Health Association Oklahoma; the most unlike its peers is Grand Teton National Park Foundation. 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

70 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. 70 of the 112 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)
19
Early backer (in before they grew)
69/70
Grantees still filing
52/70
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $16,534,480 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC+3 more: $106,173 · EducationGILCREASE MUSEUM: $3,301,000 · OtherGILCREASE MUSEUMFIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: $2,036,118 · OtherFIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHINDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL BSA: $1,183,925 · OtherINDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL BSAAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: $1,102,975 · OtherAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETYOKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $1,000,400 · OtherOKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONPARKSIDE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL: $1,000,000 · OtherPARKSIDE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALTULSA AREA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $500,000 · Other+58 more: $1,608,893 · Other+58 moreTULSA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $3,016,750 · PhilanthropyTULSA COMMU…Bozeman Deaconess Foundation: $403,000 · PhilanthropyBozeman Dea…GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION: $131,000 · Philanthropy+4 more: $74,000 · PhilanthropyFamily & Childrens Services Inc: $1,164,744 · Human ServicesSTAND IN THE GAP INC: $65,000 · Human Services+12 more: $160,500 · Human ServicesFab Lab Tulsa Inc: $515,000 · Arts & CultureTULSA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM INC: $500,000 · Arts & CultureOKLAHOMA HALL OF FAME: $139,675 · Arts & CultureTHE PHILBROOK MUSEUM OF ART INC: $130,622 · Arts & CultureTULSA HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $76,900 · Arts & Culture+2 more: $20,000 · Arts & CultureDEAN MCGEE EYE INSTITUTE: $502,000 · HealthOKLAHOMA PROJECT WOMAN INC: $176,250 · HealthTHE HOPE FOR FERTILITY FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Health+8 more: $82,000 · HealthGlobal Gardens Incorporated: $123,500 · Youth DevelopmentBUILDING ALL CHILDREN INC: $65,000 · Youth DevelopmentYOUTH DEVELOPMENT OF TULSA INC: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentCAMP LOUGHRIDGE: $10,000 · Youth Development
Education$16,640,653Other$11,733,311Philanthropy$3,624,750Human Services$1,390,244Arts & Culture$1,382,197Health$810,250Youth Development$208,500

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 budgetUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $16,534,480 over 6y, 4.1% of budgetTULSA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $3,016,750 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFamily & Childrens Services Inc: $1,164,744 over 8y, 0.5% of budgetFab Lab Tulsa Inc: $515,000 over 6y, 11% of budgetDEAN MCGEE EYE INSTITUTE: $502,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetTULSA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM INC: $500,000 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetBozeman Deaconess Foundation: $403,000 over 5y, 4.0% of budgetOKLAHOMA PROJECT WOMAN INC: $176,250 over 8y, 2.3% of budgetOKLAHOMA HALL OF FAME: $139,675 over 8y, 1.2% of budgetGRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION: $131,000 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetTHE PHILBROOK MUSEUM OF ART INC: $130,622 over 8y, 0.5% of budgetGlobal Gardens Incorporated: $123,500 over 8y, 3.4% of budgetTransitional Living Centers of Oklahoma Inc: $116,500 over 3y, 6.1% of budgetIRON GATE INC: $110,000 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $85,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetTULSA AREA UNITED WAY: $80,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP SCHOOL: $80,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTULSA HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $76,900 over 7y, 4.0% of budgetSTAND IN THE GAP INC: $65,000 over 5y, 2.4% of budgetBUILDING ALL CHILDREN INC: $65,000 over 6y, 5.2% of budgetREADING PARTNERS: $60,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTULSA DAY CENTER INC: $51,500 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetTHE HOPE FOR FERTILITY FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 5y, 8.3% of budgetThe University of Tulsa: $45,673 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBOSTON AVENUE HELPING HANDS INC: $40,000 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetEagle Mount: $35,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA CITY INC: $34,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetTULSA COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetMental Health Association in Tulsa Inc dba Mental Health Association Oklahoma: $22,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetDOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SERVICES: $22,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetO R U GOLDEN EAGLE CLUB INC: $22,500 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetA NEW LEAF INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE SAN MIGUEL SCHOOL OF TULSA: $20,000 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetPathways Adult Learning Center Inc: $20,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetCITY YEAR INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTULSA BOYS' HOME INC: $20,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetOklahoma Medical Research Foundation: $17,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLITTLE LIGHT HOUSE INC: $15,640 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetEASTERN OKLAHOMA DONATED DENTAL SERVICES INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetMeals on Wheels of Metro Tulsa Inc: $14,500 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetHealth Outreach Prevention Education Inc: $12,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTULSA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $11,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetYOUTH DEVELOPMENT OF TULSA INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHELPING HANDS MINISTRIES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTULSA AIR & SPACE MUSEUM INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetAIM HIGH ACADEMY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetThe Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Inc: $10,000 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.

  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds TULSA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Family & Childrens Services Inc ↗
  • Who funds Fab Lab Tulsa Inc ↗
  • Who funds DEAN MCGEE EYE INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds TULSA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM INC ↗
  • Who funds Bozeman Deaconess Foundation ↗
  • Who funds OKLAHOMA PROJECT WOMAN INC ↗
  • Who funds OKLAHOMA HALL OF FAME ↗
  • Who funds GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE PHILBROOK MUSEUM OF ART INC ↗
  • Who funds Global Gardens Incorporated ↗
  • Who funds Transitional Living Centers of Oklahoma Inc ↗
  • Who funds IRON GATE INC ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds TULSA AREA UNITED WAY ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds TULSA HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds STAND IN THE GAP INC ↗
  • Who funds BUILDING ALL CHILDREN INC ↗
  • Who funds READING PARTNERS ↗
  • Who funds TULSA DAY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds THE HOPE FOR FERTILITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds The University of Tulsa ↗
  • Who funds BOSTON AVENUE HELPING HANDS INC ↗
  • Who funds Eagle Mount ↗
  • Who funds CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA CITY INC ↗
  • Who funds TULSA COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY FOUNDATION ↗

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.

The Anne and Henry Za…Tulsa Community Found…The Gelvin FoundationThe Hardesty Family F…Grace & Franklin Bern…Ralph and Frances McG…George Kaiser Family …Mervin Bovaird Founda…Maxine and Jack Zarro…The Sharna and Irvin …One Gas Foundation IncOneok Foundation Inc
The Anne and Henry Zarrow FoundationOK73.9× affinity34 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Anne and Henry Zarrow Foundation · Tulsa Community Foundation · The Gelvin Foundation · The Hardesty Family Foundation Inc · Grace & Franklin Bernsen Foundation · Ralph and Frances McGill Foundation the Trust Company of Oklahoma · George Kaiser Family Foundation · Mervin Bovaird Foundation · Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family Foundation · The Sharna and Irvin Frank Foundation · One Gas Foundation Inc · Oneok Foundation Inc

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 The Charles & Peggy Stephenson Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Charles & Peggy Stephenson Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 270%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 8%
  • Up With Trees Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation: 31% of income from government
  • Domestic Violence Intervention Services: 15% of income from government
  • Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma Inc: 13% of income from government
  • Trustees of Boston University: 12% of income from government
  • Tulsa Community Foundation: 11% of income from government
  • City Year Inc: 11% of income from government
  • Tulsa Day Center Inc: 9% of income from government
  • Mental Health Association in Tulsa Inc dba Mental Health Association Oklahoma: 8% of income from government
  • The University of Tulsa: 5% of income from government
  • The Philbrook Museum of Art Inc: 4% of income from government
  • Dean Mcgee Eye Institute: 1% of income from government
  • Family & Childrens Services Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Tulsa Habitat for Humanity Inc: 0% of income from government
  • Oral Roberts University: 0% of income from government
  • Global Gardens Incorporated: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
27get no government money at all
18report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely 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 112 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 Charles & Peggy Stephenson Family’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