Skip to content
The McLane Family Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The McLane Family Charitable Foundation

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.

$268
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$268
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$779kPublic Benefit$62kEnvironment$49kHealth$27kCivil Rights$23kCrime & Legal$20kArts & Culture$17kHuman Services$11kOther$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$268
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PICKLES GROUP$268
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 (FY24–24, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CARRYING HOPE: $5k → 10%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

MN
IL
NY
IN
PA
CA
VA
MD
DE
TN
DC
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$807k · 9 repeat orgs$189k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +66% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
24

Total granted

$807k
$189k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+66%
0%

Still filing today

89%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’23’24’25
EducationPublic BenefitHealthYouth DevelopmentSocial ScienceCivil RightsOther
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

  • University of Chicago
    2× · 2018–2024 · $300k · revenue +52%
  • CI
    CATO INSTITUTE
    3× · 2018–2024 · $31k · revenue +71%
  • TR
    THE REASON FOUNDATION
    3× · 2020–2024 · $26k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • TB
    The Breakthrough Institute
    one grant, 2024 · $49k · revenue -33%
  • IF
    INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
    one grant, 2024 · $20k · revenue +11%
  • FF
    FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION INC
    one grant, 2024 · $20k · revenue +20%
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
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education
2
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
3
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…

Social Science
4
The International Institute for Strategic Studies - Us

To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…

International
5
Peter G Peterson Institute for International Economics

The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…

Social Science
6
Pew Research Center

Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. Pew Research Center generates a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and…

Social Science
7
Foreign Policy Research Institute

The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…

International
8
United States Naval Institute

Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.

—
9
The Rand Corporation

Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.

Public Benefit
10
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…

Science & Tech
11
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Competitive enterprise institute (cei) is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. we believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being…

—
12
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Public Policy Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Carrying Hope. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

25 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. 25 of the 33 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/25
Grantees still filing
14/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN: $420,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTINUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN - SALEM CENTER: $20,000 · Other+15 more: $41,169 · Other+15 moreUniversity of Chicago: $300,000 · EducationUniversity of ChicagoTHE REASON FOUNDATION: $26,000 · EducationTHE REASON FOUNDATIONGEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 · EducationGEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC+2 more: $13,000 · EducationThe Breakthrough Institute: $48,826 · EnvironmentCATO INSTITUTE: $31,000 · Public BenefitTEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Public BenefitMANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH INC: $5,000 · Public BenefitINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: $20,000 · Civil RightsFOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION INC: $20,000 · Civil RightsPickles Group Inc: $13,268 · Youth DevelopmentCamp For All Foundation: $1,500 · Youth DevelopmentNATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $10,000 · HealthBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,000 · HealthAIDS FOUNDATION HOUSTON INC: $500 · Health
Other$481,169Education$359,000Environment$48,826Public Benefit$41,000Civil Rights$40,000Youth Development$14,768Health$11,500

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 Chicago: $300,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetThe Breakthrough Institute: $48,826 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetCATO INSTITUTE: $31,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE REASON FOUNDATION: $26,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPickles Group Inc: $13,268 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetINTERCOLLEGIATE STUDIES INSTITUTE INC: $11,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FORGE FOR FAMILIES: $5,010 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMercatus Center Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S MUSEUM INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCarrying Hope: $5,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetTHE FEDERALIST SOCIETY FOR LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetREAL CLEAR MEDIA FUND: $2,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetWIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCamp For All Foundation: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSUE DUNCAN CHILDREN'S CENTER INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetSTRONG TOWNS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAIDS FOUNDATION HOUSTON INC: $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.

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.

National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA8.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 McLane Family Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The McLane Family Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The McLane Family Charitable Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The McLane Family Charitable Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 33 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 McLane 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