Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Laughrey Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$13k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$9k
Largest
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$35kHealth$17kReligion$7kPhilanthropy$6kAnimals$700Recreation & Sports$500Human Services$300Other$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,977
Median grant
3
States reached
$311k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$8,600
NCPDP FOUNDATION$1,977
AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION (APHA)$1,953
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 77% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NCPDP FOUNDATION: $4k → 11%UNITED IN LIGHT INC: $500 → 10%JP WOODS MINISTRIES: $1k → 13%AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $2k → 14%LACROSSE TEAM AT OLYMPIA: $500 → 13%ALL IN MINISTRIES: $2k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: $500 → 15%CRISTAFI: $360 → 19%JP WOODS MINISTRIES: $1k → 6%CATS HAVEN: $100 → 16%SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $9k → 13%NCPDP: $2k → 11%UNITED IN LIGHT: $100 → 10%JP WOODS MINISTRIES: $1k → 13%APHA FOUNDATION: $2k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY - CRISAFI CHALLENGE: $1k → 19%SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $9k → 13%NCPDP FOUNDATION: $2k → 11%JP WOODS MINISTRIES: $500 → 13%APHA FOUNDATION: $2k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY - CRISAFI CHALLENGE: $400 → 19%SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $6k → 13%NCPDP: $2k → 11%J P WOODS MINISTRIES: $500 → 13%AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION (APHA): $2k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY - CRISAFI CHALLENGE: $360 → 19%SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $5k → 13%NCPDP: $2k → 11%J P WOODS MINISTRIES: $500 → 13%UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY - CRISAFI CHALLENGE: $360 → 19%SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $5k → 13%NCPDP FOUNDATION: $2k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY - CRISAFI CHALLENGE: $360 → 19%SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $5k → 13%NCPDP FOUNDATION: $2k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY - CRISAFI CHALLENGE: $300 → 19%SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $3k → 13%NCPDP: $500 → 11%SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $1k → 13%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

MT
SD
IN
CO
MD
AZ
DC
TX
FL
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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$73k · 7 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +52% since the first grant, against +15% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
7

Total granted

$73k
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+52%
+15%

Still filing today

57%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
EducationAnimalsHealthOther
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

  • SD
    SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    8× · 2018–2025 · $43k · revenue +52%
  • NF
    NCPDP FOUNDATION
    4× · 2022–2025 · $10k · revenue +756%
  • AP
    AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION
    3× · 2019–2023 · $6k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • AI
    ALL IN MINISTRIES
    one grant, 2018 · $2k
  • JP
    J P WOODS MINISTRIES INC
    one grant, 2024 · $1k
  • UO
    University of Miami
    one grant, 2024 · $500 · revenue +9%
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

6 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. 6 of the 15 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $43,450 · EducationSOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONNCPDP FOUNDATION: $9,885 · EducationNCPDP FOUNDATION+1 more: $500 · EducationNCPDP: $6,454 · OtherNCPDPJP WOODS MINISTRIES: $3,500 · OtherJP WOODS MINISTRIESUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY - CRISAFI CHALLENGE: $2,780 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLL…ALL IN MINISTRIES: $2,000 · OtherALL IN MINISTRIESAMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION (APHA): $1,953 · OtherAMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOC…J P WOODS MINISTRIES INC: $1,000 · Other+3 more: $1,160 · Other+3 moreAMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $5,859 · HealthUNITED IN LIGHT INC: $600 · AnimalsCATS HAVEN LTD: $100 · Animals
Education$53,835Other$18,847Health$5,859Animals$700

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 budgetSOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $43,450 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetNCPDP FOUNDATION: $9,885 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetAMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $5,859 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED IN LIGHT INC: $600 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetUniversity of Miami: $500 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 SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds NCPDP FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNITED IN LIGHT INC ↗
  • Who funds University of Miami ↗
  • Who funds CATS HAVEN LTD ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 The Laughrey Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Laughrey Family Foundation Inc. 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • University of Miami: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 15 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Laughrey Family’s filings →

More from the funding graph