Skip to content
Thomas and Kyle Futo Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Thomas and Kyle Futo Foundation

$20k
Granted FY2020
8
Grants FY2020
4
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2020.

Health$57kFood & Nutrition$8kHuman Services$7kEducation$5kReligion$3kHousing & Shelter$3kCommunity Improvement$2kPhilanthropy$2kOther$0
02FY2020 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k7 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$1,715
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Queen of the Valley Foundation$10,000
Kansas Food Bank$2,500
NAPA VALLEY FOOD BANK$2,000
Guadalupe Clinic Inc$1,715
PONY POWER THERAPIES$1,500
HUMANKIND MINISTRIES$1,500
Legacy Regional Community Foundatio$500
RAMAPO FOR CHILDREN$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 (FY17–20, $9k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%Senior Services Inc of Wichita: $1k → 16%Community Grief Center: $4k → 9%PONY POWER THERAPIES: $2k → 7%Community Grief Center: $1k → 9%KANSAS ELKS TRAINING CTR FOR HANDIC: $1k → 16%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.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$67k · 8 repeat orgs$18k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +36% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2020, 4 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
10

Total granted

$67k
$14k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+17%

Still filing today

88%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
Human ServicesHealthEducationFood & NutritionCommunity ImprovementReligionOther
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

  • QO
    QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION
    3× · 2018–2020 · $35k · revenue +6%
  • KF
    KANSAS FOODBANK WAREHOUSE INC
    3× · 2018–2020 · $6k · revenue +36%
  • CG
    COMMUNITY GRIEF CENTER
    2× · 2017–2018 · $5k · revenue +56%

Funded once

  • TA
    THE ALS ASSOCIATION MID-AMERICA CHAPTER
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue -9%
  • OH
    OLE HEALTH FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $3k · revenue +125%
  • WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2019 · $1k · revenue -28%
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
Kansas Healthcare Collaborative Inc

Engaging and aligning providers and stakeholders to establish Kansas as a role model for health care quality and a top performer in health care outcomes.

Health
2
Regional West Health Services

Health care services for the people of western nebraska and eastern wyoming.

Health
3
Wichita Eye Foundation

To engage in grant making to medical educational organizations and related charitable activities in the area of eye disease and vision disorder, and the care and treatment thereof.

Health
4
Guadalupe Health Foundation

To support, assist and promote the interests and welfare of the programs and activities of the catholic diocese of wichita which provide health care services and health education to poor, distressed and underprivileged individuals.

—
5
Western Kansas Community Foundation

Enriching western Kansas life through philanthropy, collaboration and leadership.

Philanthropy
6
Labette County Medical Center

We are dedicated to providing exceptional healthcare - centered around you.

Health
7
Villa St Francis Catholic Care Center Inc

Villa st francis, a catholic, non-profit skilled nursing facility sponsored by the archdiocese of kansas city in olathe, provides dementia care, skilled nursing, respite, and hospice.

Housing & Shelter
8
Hunter Health Clinic

Hunter health (the center) operates three healthcare centers in wichita, ks. the center provides a broad range of health services to a largely medically underserved population. the us dept. of health and human services (dhhs) and indian…

—
9
Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce Inc

To drive economic growth and community advancement in the wichita region.

—
10
Kanza Mental Health and Guidance Center Inc

Offer hope to build a better tomorrow through mental health services.

Health
11
Goodwill Industries of Tulsa Inc

Goodwill empowers people to reach their full potential through work opportunities, training, and support services.

Employment
12
Wichitas Littlest Heroes

Wichita's littlest heroes (wlh) exists to provide hope, help, and happiness to families of children ages 0-18 in the kansas area who are battling life-threatening medical conditions. wlh strives to accomplish this be being a physical and…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Senior Services Inc of Wichita; the most unlike its peers is St Helena Hospital Foundation. 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

16 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. 16 of the 22 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)
15/16
Grantees still filing
12/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $35,000 · HealthQUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIONSt Helena Hospital Foundation: $10,000 · HealthSt Helena Hospital FoundationTHE ALS ASSOCIATION MID-AMERICA CHAPTER: $5,000 · HealthTHE ALS ASSOCIATION MID-AMERICA CHAPTERGuadalupe Clinic Inc: $2,715 · OtherGuadalupe Clin…Catholic Diocese of Wichita: $2,500 · OtherCatholic Dioce…NAPA VALLEY FOOD BANK: $2,000 · OtherNAPA VALLEY FO…WICHITA DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPOR: $1,000 · OtherWICHITA DOWNTO…COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOC FOR C: $1,000 · OtherCOURT APPOINTE…Individual grant recipient: $500 · OtherThe Lord's Diner: $500 · OtherWichita Downtown Development Corporation: $500 · OtherRAMAPO FOR CHILDREN INC: $500 · OtherCOMMUNITY GRIEF CENTER: $5,000 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY G…PONY POWER THERAPIES INC: $1,500 · Human ServicesPONY POWER …KANSAS ELKS TRAINING CENTER FOR THE HANDICAPPED INC: $1,000 · Human ServicesKANSAS ELKS…SENIOR SERVICES INC OF WICHITA: $1,000 · Human ServicesSENIOR SERV…KANSAS FOODBANK WAREHOUSE INC: $5,500 · Food & NutritionYouth Entrepreneurs Inc: $4,000 · EducationWICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $1,000 · EducationOLE HEALTH FOUNDATION: $2,500 · PhilanthropyLEGACY A REGIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,500 · PhilanthropyHUMANKIND MINISTRIES WICHITA INC: $2,500 · Religion
Health$50,000Other$11,215Human Services$8,500Food & Nutrition$5,500Education$5,000Philanthropy$4,000Religion$2,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetQUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $35,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetSt Helena Hospital Foundation: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetKANSAS FOODBANK WAREHOUSE INC: $5,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY GRIEF CENTER: $5,000 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetTHE ALS ASSOCIATION MID-AMERICA CHAPTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetYouth Entrepreneurs Inc: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGuadalupe Clinic Inc: $2,715 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHUMANKIND MINISTRIES WICHITA INC: $2,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOLE HEALTH FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPONY POWER THERAPIES INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLEGACY A REGIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKANSAS ELKS TRAINING CENTER FOR THE HANDICAPPED INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSENIOR SERVICES INC OF WICHITA: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWichita Downtown Development Corporation: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRAMAPO FOR CHILDREN 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.

Textron Charitable Tr…United Way of the Pla…Wichita FoundationZack and Leilah Farha…Daniel J Taylor Famil…Dwane L and Velma Lun…Berry Foundation IncNational Philanthropi…American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…Morgan Stanley Global…Natl Christian Charit…
Textron Charitable Trust Dtd 122353RI17× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Textron Charitable Trust Dtd 122353 · United Way of the Plains Inc · Wichita Foundation · Zack and Leilah Farha Charitable Foundation Inc · Daniel J Taylor Family Charitable Foundation · Dwane L and Velma Lunt Wallace Charitable Foundation · Berry Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc

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 Thomas and Kyle Futo Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Thomas and Kyle Futo 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    7report 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 22 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2021) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2020, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Thomas and Kyle Futo’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