Skip to content

· Private foundation

The William B Bowie Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$37k
Granted FY2024still arriving
16
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Food & Nutrition$24kArts & Culture$12kEnvironment$11kHuman Services$11kHealth$9kHousing & Shelter$8kAnimals$6kYouth Development$4kOther$0
02FY2024 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$443k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$5,000
KIDS FOOD BASKET$5,000
WMCAT$3,000
CHRISTIAN CENTER FOOD BANK$3,000
MEL TROTTER MINISTIRES$2,500
SUMMIT LAND CONSERVANCY$2,500
PEACE HOUSE INC$2,500
PEOPLE'S HEALTH CLINIC$2,500
HUMANE SOCIETY OF WEST MICHIGAN$2,000
CAMP BLODGETT$2,000
LUCKY PROJECT$1,500
MEALS ON WHEELS$1,500
UTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOC$1,000
PARK CITY MUSEUM$1,000
PARK CITY FOUNDATION - WOMANS FUND$1,000
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 (FY22–24, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 5%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%PEACE HOUSE INC: $3k → 5%PEACE HOUSE INC: $3k → 5%PEACE HOUSE INC: $3k → 5%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$98k · 14 repeat orgs$3k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
2

Total granted

$98k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+77%

Still filing today

64%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
EnvironmentHuman ServicesFood & NutritionHealthAnimalsEducationOther
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

  • MT
    MEL TROTTER MINISTRIES
    3× · 2022–2024 · $8k · revenue +3%
  • SL
    Summit Land Conservancy
    3× · 2022–2024 · $8k · revenue +101%
  • PH
    People's Health Clicnic
    3× · 2022–2024 · $8k · revenue +66%

Funded once

  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS
    one grant, 2024 · $2k
  • LP
    Lucky Projectgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $2k · revenue +77%
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
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
2
Utah Humanities Council

Utah Humanities collaborates with libraries, museums, historical societies, schools, colleges, and cultural and civic groups; provides capacity-building opportunities for volunteers and professionals in the cultural sector; presents…

Arts & Culture
3
Utah Public Lands Alliance
Education
4
Whatcom Land Trust

The mission of the Whatcom Land Trust is to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural and open space lands in Whatcom County for future generations by securing interests in land and promoting land stewardship.

Environment
5
Rocky Mountain Wild

Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…

Environment
6
Heart of the Lakes Ctr for Land Cons

Heart of the Lakes provides technical assistance, leadership training, and strategic communication tools that help organizations thrive - from grassroots land conservancies to larger regional conservation groups. Programs such as peer…

Environment
7
Uplands Peak Sanctuary Inc

To rescue and rehabilitate abused and neglected farm animals educate the public about the benefits of a healthy vegan lifestyle promote sustainability through plant-based living and create meaningful connections between farm animals and…

Animals
8
Peoples Legal Aid

People's Legal Aid is a non-profit legal organization providing free civil legal education, assistance and representation to any Utahn facing eviction and debt collections lawsuits.

Crime & Legal
9
Placer Land Trust

Placer Land Trust works with willing landowners and conservation partners to permanently protect and care for natural and agricultural lands in Placer County for current and future generations.

Environment
10
Wasatch Homeless Health Care

Help homeless Utahns improve their health and quality of life by providing high-quality health care and support services.

Health
11
Land Trust of the Treasure Valley

To create oppurtunites for conservation of natural, scenic, historic, recreational and agricultural values of southwestern idaho's open spaces through collabarative efforts for current and future generations. the land trust indentifies…

Environment
12
Wallowa Land Trust

Our mission is to protect the rural nature of Wallowa County by working cooperatively with private landowners,indigenous people, local communities and governmental entities to conserve land.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kids' Food Basket Inc; the most unlike its peers is Lucky Project. 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 16 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
9/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientWMCAT: $9,000 · OtherWMCATMEL TROTTER MINISTRIES: $7,500 · OtherMEL TROTTER MINISTRIESCHRISTIAN CENTER FOOD BANK: $7,000 · OtherCHRISTIAN CENTER FOOD BANKPARK CITY FOUNDATION - WOMANS FUND: $3,000 · OtherPARK CITY FOUNDATION - WOMANS FUNDGILDA'S CLUB: $3,000 · OtherGILDA'S CLUB+1 more: $1,500 · OtherKIDS' FOOD BASKET INC: $15,000 · Food & NutritionKIDS' FOOD BASKE…Summit Land Conservancy: $7,500 · EnvironmentSummit Land…UTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $3,000 · EnvironmentUTAH OPEN L…Peace House Inc: $7,500 · Human ServicesPeace Hous…Lucky Project: $1,500 · Human ServicesLucky Proj…People's Health Clicnic: $7,500 · HealthHUMANE SOCIETY OF WEST MICHIGAN: $6,000 · AnimalsCAMP BLODGETT: $4,000 · Recreation & SportsPARK CITY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $3,000 · Education
Other$46,000Food & Nutrition$15,000Environment$10,500Human Services$9,000Health$7,500Animals$6,000Recreation & Sports$4,000Education$3,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetKIDS' FOOD BASKET INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMEL TROTTER MINISTRIES: $7,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSummit Land Conservancy: $7,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPeople's Health Clicnic: $7,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetPeace House Inc: $7,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF WEST MICHIGAN: $6,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCAMP BLODGETT: $4,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $3,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetPARK CITY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $3,000 over 3y, 0.1% 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 KIDS' FOOD BASKET INC ↗
  • Who funds MEL TROTTER MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds Summit Land Conservancy ↗
  • Who funds People's Health Clicnic ↗
  • Who funds Peace House Inc ↗
  • Who funds HUMANE SOCIETY OF WEST MICHIGAN ↗
  • Who funds CAMP BLODGETT ↗
  • Who funds UTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PARK CITY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds Lucky Project ↗

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.

Mightycause Charitable FoundationFL12.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 William B Bowie Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The William B Bowie Foundation. 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 16 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on William B Bowie’s filings →

    More from the funding graph