How much did THE LIVING STONES FOUNDATION CHARITABLE grant in FY2024?

Religion$4.1MPhilanthropy$3.7MRecreation & Sports$1.1MPublic Benefit$375kHuman Services$320kInternational$100kEducation$100kCivil Rights$50kPublic Safety & Disaster$25kOther$2.0M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

biblical

2019

spiritualpositive

2020

supportgeneral

2021

honorsacrificestephen silleremergencydisasterresponserecovery

2022

connectchurchesmediafaithsports

2023

jesus christfaith

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

$10k–50k5 grants · $120k
$50k–250k12 grants · $990k
$250k+1 grant · $360k

$50,000

Median grant

States reached

$32M

Total assets

Largest grants

WATERSTONE (CHRISTIAN COMM FOUNDATION)$360,000
LANCE WALLNAU MINISTRIES INC (FOR FURNISHING FAMILIES OF TX)$240,000
NEW GENERATIONS$150,000
NEW HORIZONS FOUNDATION INC$100,000
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTHY VETERANS$75,000
LUIS PALAU EVANGELISTIC ASSOC$75,000
MESSIANIC JEWISH ALLIANCE OF AMERICA$50,000
MILITARY COMMUNITY YOUTH MINISTRIES$50,000
MUSEUM OF THE BIBLE$50,000
SINAPIS GROUP INC$50,000
INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM$50,000
MADE TO FLOURISH INC$50,000
DENVER INSTITUTE FOR FAITH & WORK$50,000
FULLNESS OF GLORY MINISTRIES$40,000
MARANATHA CHRISTIAN MISSION INC$25,000

02The need

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 (FY17–24, $310k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7% — the area typically sits at 8%. 52% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

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 line in 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$11M · 26 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

26 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$11M

$1.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%

+119%

Still filing today

88%

65%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $175k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

ReligionHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsPhilanthropyPublic BenefitEducationOther

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

W(
WATERSTONE (CHRISTIAN COMM FOUNDATION)
8× · 2017–2024 · $3.6M · revenue +225%
NG
NEW GENERATIONS
7× · 2018–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +160%
LP
LUIS PALAU EVANGELISTIC ASSOC
8× · 2017–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +54%

Funded once

U
USATRANSFORMgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $275k · revenue +1081%
4
4AFRICAgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +119%
VA
VISION AMERICA MOBILIZED INC
one grant, 2018 · $100k

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

04Your field

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.

Global Impact for Christ

To inspire, equip and facilitate the spreading of the gospel of jesus christ globally with education, cross-cultural training, and church planting.

Religion

Christian Ministries International

—

Explore God Network

—

Global Faith Network

Human Services

Christian Mission for the United Nations

Christian Mission for the United Nations Community is a ministry aimed at leading the head of every nation and other top leaders to faith in Jesus Christ and helping them to walk in dependence upon God as they discharge the…

—

International Impact Ministries in

Religion

Christianity Engaged

Christian video production studio and online ministry

Religion

Influencers Global Ministries

Religious organization devoted to strengthening members' personal faith.

Religion

Transform Ministries

—

Christianity Today International

Equipping Christians to renew their minds, serve the church, and create culture to the glory of God

Religion

Asia Us Impact

Religious

Religion

Harrison International Ministries

Sharing biblical principles

Religion

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Onecry Global Ministries Inc and the most unlike its peers is International Generosity Foundation Trust. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2%1/47

the rest of the field

11%

206,163/1,819,518

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.

05the grantee network

39 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

37/39

Grantees still filing

30/39

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Religion$4,082,000Philanthropy$3,730,025Other$2,222,300Recreation & Sports$1,085,000Public Benefit$375,000Human Services$320,000International$100,000

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.

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.

Christian Community Foundation IncCO32.3× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Christian Community Foundation Inc · Servant Foundation · The Maclellan Foundation Inc · Greater Houston Community Foundation · Donors Trust Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Chattanooga Christian Community · Agape Foundation Charitable Trust · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund · Moriah Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · M J Murdock Charitable Trust

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 organisation THE LIVING STONES FOUNDATION CHARITABLE 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

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

4get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: ALLELUU.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

high risk

~0 months of operating runway; revenue contracted over 2 filed years.

Track record & reputation

high risk

2 years of Form 990 filings, no recent filing.

Legal standing

medium risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 461081064 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on ALLELUU, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 0 months of cash on hand.
FlagSustained operations— No recent filing on record.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 56% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to The Living Stones Foundation Charitable?

Find your warmest path to The Living Stones Foundation Charitable through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

THE LIVING STONES FOUNDATION CHARITABLE

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

39 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Living Stones Foundation Charitable?

More from the funding graph

THE LIVING STONES FOUNDATION CHARITABLE

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

39 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Living Stones Foundation Charitable?

More from the funding graph