Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

The Ephesians Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$500k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20212024.

Human Services$1.2MReligion$1.1MInternational$70kEducation$30kRecreation & Sports$20kHealth$10k
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $134k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $62k
  • $250k+2 grants · $800k
$30,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$4.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHEROKEE HOME FOR CHILDREN$500,000
SUNSET INTERNATIONAL BIBLE INSTITUTE$300,000
PECOS CHURCH OF CHRIST$61,500
NEW MEXICO CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S HOME$34,385
THE AGAPE SCHOOL$30,000
TEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH$20,000
QUARTZ MOUNTAIN CHRISTIAN CAMP$20,000
MANUELITO NAVAJO CHILDRENS HOME INC$19,800
SKY HIGH FOR KIDS$10,000
BROWN TRAIL SCHOOL OF PREACHING$5,100
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY22–24, $924k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%CHEROKEE HOME FOR CHILDREN: $500k → 19%NEW MEXICO CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S HOME: $50k → 18%MANUELITO NAVAJO CHILDRENS HOME INC: $20k → 32%CHEROKEE HOME FOR CHILDREN: $215k → 19%NEW MEXICO CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S HOME: $34k → 18%MANUELITO NAVAJO CHILDRENS HOME INC: $5k → 32%CHEROKEE HOME FOR CHILDREN: $100k → 19%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

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.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 5% of The Ephesians Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.

The Ephesians Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 3.7% directed abroad (not shown)

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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$2.2M · 8 repeat orgs$185k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +18% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.

8 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$2.2M
$125k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+18%
+14%

Still filing today

50%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesEducationHealthReligionOther

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

  • CH
    CHEROKEE HOME FOR CHILDREN
    3× · 2022–2024 · $815k · revenue +111%
  • TG
    TEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH
    3× · 2022–2024 · $238k · revenue +8%
  • MN
    MANUELITO NAVAJO CHILDRENS HOME
    2× · 2022–2024 · $25k · revenue +18%

Funded once

  • AS
    ALMA SCHOOL RD CHURCH OF CHRIST
    one grant, 2022 · $70k
  • CC
    CLYDE CHURCH OF CHRIST
    one grant, 2022 · $33k
  • SF
    STARFISH FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $22k · revenue +14%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field
05the grantee network

7 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 14 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

CHEROKEE HOME FOR CHILDREN — $815,000 · Human ServicesCHEROKEE HOME FOR CHILDRENTEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH — $237,680 · Human ServicesTEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCHNEW MEXICO CHRISTIAN CHILDRENS HOME — $84,385 · Human ServicesNEW MEXICO CHRISTIAN CHILDRENS HOME+1 more — $24,800 · Human ServicesSUNSET INTERNATIONAL BIBLE INSTITUTE INC — $800,000 · OtherSUNSET INTERNATIONAL BIBLE INSTITUTE INCPECOS CHURCH OF CHRIST — $102,100 · OtherPECOS CHURCH OF CHRISTBROWN TRAIL SCHOOL OF PREACHING — $77,600 · OtherBROWN TRAIL SCHOOL OF PREACHINGALMA SCHOOL RD CHURCH OF CHRIST — $70,000 · OtherALMA SCHOOL RD CHURCH OF CHRIST+3 more — $68,727 · Other+3 moreThe Agape School Inc — $30,000 · EducationSTARFISH FOUNDATION — $22,200 · ReligionSKY HIGH FOR KIDS INC — $10,000 · Health
Human Services$1,161,865Other$1,118,427Education$30,000Religion$22,200Health$10,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCHEROKEE HOME FOR CHILDREN — $815,000 over 3y, 6.8% of budgetTEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH — $237,680 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetNEW MEXICO CHRISTIAN CHILDRENS HOME — $84,385 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetThe Agape School Inc — $30,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetMANUELITO NAVAJO CHILDRENS HOME — $24,800 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetSTARFISH FOUNDATION — $22,200 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetSKY HIGH FOR KIDS INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
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 CHEROKEE HOME FOR CHILDREN
  • Who funds TEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH
  • Who funds NEW MEXICO CHRISTIAN CHILDRENS HOME
  • Who funds The Agape School Inc
  • Who funds MANUELITO NAVAJO CHILDRENS HOME
  • Who funds STARFISH FOUNDATION
  • Who funds SKY HIGH FOR KIDS INC

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.

Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA7.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 The Ephesians 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%your 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
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 14 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph