Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Murray 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.

$10k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Health$31kHuman Services$27kArts & Culture$7kReligion$4kYouth Development$3kHousing & Shelter$2kPhilanthropy$2kEnvironment$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$189k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Community Foundation of West TN$2,000
CARE CENTER$2,000
EXCHANGE CENTER CARL PERK$2,000
HOPE RECOVERY CENTER$1,500
RIFA$1,000
The Star Center$1,000
FCA$500
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 (FY23–23, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 19%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 19%DREAM CENTER OF JACKSON: $2k → 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.
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.
$71k · 12 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +20% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
4

Total granted

$71k
$4k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+20%
+10%

Still filing today

58%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesArts & CultureEmploymentYouth 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

  • TC
    THE CARE CENTER
    7× · 2019–2025 · $10k · revenue +22%
  • JA
    JACKSON ARTS COUNCIL
    5× · 2019–2024 · $7k · revenue +20%
  • SC
    Star Center Inc
    6× · 2019–2025 · $6k · revenue +10%

Funded once

  • TD
    The Dream Center
    one grant, 2023 · $2k · revenue -45%
  • LG
    LIBERTY GARDEN PARK CONSERVANCY
    one grant, 2024 · $1k
  • MC
    MADISON COUNTY YOUTH BASEBALL
    one grant, 2024 · $800
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
Trc the Recovery Center

Our continuing mission is to change the lives of those who suffer from alcohol and drug addiction.

Health
2
Life Choices Resource Center Inc

To provide pregnancy testing (including ultrasound examinations), counseling, and referrals as needed (including post-abortion counseling) in our offices and through our 24-hour help-line.

—
3
Hope Pregnancy Support Center

Support Women in Crisis Pregnancy

Health
4
Wyandotte Pregnancy Clinic Inc

Pregnancy counseling

Health
5
Carolina Pregnancy Center

We are a crisis pregnancy center offering assistance to all women with pregnancy related issues.

Health
6
Life Choices Care Center

To provide support for pregnant women

Health
7
Pregnancy Care Center

The Pregnancy Care Center is a Christian organization to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to boldly endorse the sacredness of all human life, by providing comprehensive, practical services as enduring alternatives to abortion.

—
8
Womens Care Center of Milwaukee Corp

WCC of Milwaukee Corp provides pregnancy resources such as education, counseling, free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, tangible assistance, assistance, and parenting supplies to financially disadvantage women.

Human Services
9
Liberty Womens Clinic

Liberty Women's Clinic ministers with the love of Christ by empowering people to make informed, life-affirming decisions about pregnancy, sexual health, and relationships.

Health
10
Metro Womens Center

Operating a crisis pregnancy center

Housing & Shelter
11
South Texas Pregnancy Care Center

Crisis pregnancy counseling.

Health
12
Pregnancy Care Center

The pregnancy care center empowers individuals to make life-affirming decisions through education, medical services, counseling, and compassionate care based on the ministry of jesus christ.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Dream Center; the most unlike its peers is Birth Choice Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 18 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

REGIONAL INTER-FAITH ASSOCIATION INC: $10,500 · OtherREGIONAL INTER-FAITH ASSOCIATION INCEXCHANGE CENTER CARL PERKINS: $10,250 · OtherEXCHANGE CENTER CARL PERKINSWOMEN OF HOPE CENTER: $7,000 · OtherWOMEN OF HOPE CENTERFCA: $4,750 · OtherFCACOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF WEST TN: $4,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF WEST TNEXCHANGE CENTER CARL PERK: $2,000 · OtherWEST TN AREA COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: $2,000 · Other+2 more: $1,800 · OtherWEST TN HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 · HealthWEST TN HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION INCTHE CARE CENTER: $10,000 · HealthTHE CARE CENTERBIRTH CHOICE INC: $4,000 · HealthBIRTH CHOICE INCHope Recovery Center: $3,700 · HealthHope Recovery CenterJACKSON ARTS COUNCIL: $7,000 · Arts & CultureStar Center Inc: $6,000 · EmploymentSCARLET ROPE PROJECT: $2,200 · Human ServicesThe Dream Center: $2,000 · Human ServicesYOUNG LIFE: $500 · Youth Development
Other$42,300Health$37,700Arts & Culture$7,000Employment$6,000Human Services$4,200Youth Development$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 budgetWEST TN HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CARE CENTER: $10,000 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetJACKSON ARTS COUNCIL: $7,000 over 5y, 1.4% of budgetStar Center Inc: $6,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetBIRTH CHOICE INC: $4,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetHope Recovery Center: $3,700 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSCARLET ROPE PROJECT: $2,200 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetThe Dream Center: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWEST TN AREA COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetYOUNG LIFE: $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 WEST TN HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds THE CARE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds JACKSON ARTS COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds Star Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds BIRTH CHOICE INC ↗
  • Who funds Hope Recovery Center ↗
  • Who funds SCARLET ROPE PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds The Dream Center ↗
  • Who funds WEST TN AREA COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds YOUNG LIFE ↗

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.

West Tn Healthcare Foundation IncTN20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: West Tn Healthcare Foundation Inc · The Richardson Charitable Foundation · James E Campbell Family Foundation 26-3889180 · Charles & Debby Campbell Family Foundation · Charles P Wilson Foundation Inc · United Way of West Tennesseinc Starks · Southwest Members Care Incorporated · Community Foundation of Greater Memphis Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Murray Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Murray 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Murray Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to The Murray Foundation Inc 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 18 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 Murray’s filings →

    More from the funding graph