· Private foundation
The Owen Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k14 grants · $42k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $126k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $385k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HEART MINISTRY CENTER | $135,000 |
| LPIF FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| HOLY NAME SCHOOL | $50,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| VITA NOVA MATERNITY COMMUNITY | $50,000 |
| AKSARBEN FOUNDATION | $33,250 |
| OPERA OMAHA | $30,000 |
| CROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $15,000 |
| FRIENDS OF NEBRASKA PARKS | $12,500 |
| UNITED WAY OF THE MIDLANDS | $10,000 |
| ST MARGARET MARY CHURCH | $10,000 |
| BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA | $8,000 |
| OMAHA COMMUNITY PLAYHOUSE | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY24–24, $150k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 67% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +19% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
22 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $180k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- HMHEART MINISTRY CENTER5× · 2020–2024 · $265k · revenue +63%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION4× · 2021–2024 · $104k · revenue +12%
- UWUNITED WAY OF THE MIDLANDS2× · 2021–2024 · $20k · revenue +28%
Funded once
- OFOPAS FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue -67%
- BCBEMIS CENTERone grant, 2020 · $30k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $25k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
One omaha empowers people where they live with education, training, and engagement to develop thriving neighborhoods.
The mission of the omaha parks foundation is to improve, promote, preserve, protect, and support omaha's parks and recreation system. we engage in initiatives that make our parks system more accessible, inclusive, and beneficial to all…
To present a variety of high quality arts programs and exhibits in Omaha for the general public to enjoy and appreciate.
To increase business, employment, and investment in the greater omaha area.
To serve the community by cultivating generosity and strengthening nonprofits.
Our mission is to help nonprofits fulfill theirs.
The mission of the omaha sports commission is to foster a positive socio-economic impact on and a heightened awareness and image of omaha by attracting, hosting, & supporting amateur sporting events.
The foundation's mission is to provide support for education, training and career development for banking and related programs. in addition, the foundation will support federally insured depository institutions and the communities in which…
The mission of oedc is to implement economic development projects, housing, and community revitalization programs that create jobs, business ownership opportunities and other economic benefits for area residents.
We believe in thoughtful, ecologically-minded practices and the curation of accessible, educational, and inspirational experiences that enhance lives.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Opera Omaha Inc and the most unlike its peers is Corporal Daegan Page Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 34 years old; the field is 25. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 15% startups (under 5 years old) — 17% of your grantees by number, and just 8% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 8% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
23 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 23 of the 61 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds HEART MINISTRY CENTER ↗
- Who funds OPERA OMAHA INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OPAS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LPIF Foundation ↗
- Who funds VITA NOVA MATERNITY COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF THE MIDLANDS ↗
- Who funds BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 326 MID-AMERICA COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds THE JET AWARD FOUNDATION & TRUST ↗
- Who funds FILM STREAMS INC ↗
- Who funds BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF THE MIDLANDS ↗
- Who funds OMAHA PERFORMING ARTS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds JOSLYN ART MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds OMAHA COMMUNITY PLAYHOUSE ↗
- Who funds OMAHA ZOO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SIOUXLAND INC ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKA STATE FAIR BOARD ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKA GAME AND PARKS FOUNDATION ↗
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.
Open a dossier: The Lozier Foundation · The Sherwood Foundation · The Hawks Foundation · Robert B Daugherty Foundation · Harley and Beth Schrager Foundation · Peter Kiewit Foundation · Union Pacific Foundation · John K & Lynne D Boyer Foundation · Suzanne & Walter Scott Foundation · The Charles and Mary Heider Family Foundation · Nebraska Community Foundation · Parker Family 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 Owen 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Owen Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Owen 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.