· Private foundation
Tw 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k3 grants · $75k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $235k
- $250k+2 grants · $4.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WYOCOMPLEX | $2,000,000 |
| THE LYRIC | $2,000,000 |
| PLATTE RIVER TRAILS | $135,000 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CENTRAL WYOMING | $50,000 |
| WYOMING RESCUE MISSION | $50,000 |
| CENTRAL WYOMING FAIR & RODEO | $35,156 |
| WYOMING STATE FAIR ENDOWMENT FUND | $25,000 |
| JAE FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
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 (FY17–20, $287k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 89% of Tw Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in WY; read by stated purpose it is 12% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +27% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 13 since wound down; 4 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, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.2M 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
- WCWYO COMPLEX2× · 2023–2024 · $4.0M · revenue +19%
- BGBoys & Girls Club of Central Wyoming4× · 2021–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +26%
- CDChild Development Center of Natrona County6× · 2017–2022 · $1.0M · revenue +42%
Funded once
- PFPHILANTHROPY FOR WYOMING LLCone grant, 2017 · $3.9M
- CCCASPER COLLEGE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2018 · $1.1M · revenue -19%
- CFCasper Family YMCA INCone grant, 2020 · $1.0M · revenue -54%
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.
None
The strengthen Wyoming communities by fostering a spirit of service and volunteerism among citizens of all ages and carry out a national service program as authorized by the National and Community Service Act of 1990.
Crisis mission: to provide temporary care and shelter for abused, abandoned or neglected children long term mission: to provide a residency program for children without a stable home.
WYCRP is committed to supporting the safety, permanence, and well-being of children through systematic reviews, education, prevention, and early intervention efforts. As a federally mandated entity, the Citizen Review Panel evaluates the…
The Wyoming Nonprofit Network represents the collective voice of the Wyoming charitable nonprofit sector and brings best practices, resources, and support to the nonprofit community.
Provide training and technical assistance
Wyoming wildlife federation delivers leadership in conservation for the state's wildlife, hunters, anglers, and conservationists through policy, education, advocacy, and habitat.
To support the Boys & Girls Club of Central Wyoming through a Building Fund, Endowment Fund, and Educational Fund
Promote 4-h activities on the state & local level.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Special Olympics Wyoming Inc and the most unlike its peers is Central Wyoming Junior Livestock Sale Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
21 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. 21 of the 30 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 WYO COMPLEX ↗
- Who funds Boys & Girls Club of Central Wyoming ↗
- Who funds CASPER COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Child Development Center of Natrona County ↗
- Who funds Casper Family YMCA INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WYOMING AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM ↗
- Who funds Wyoming Rescue Mission ↗
- Who funds WYOMING FOOD FOR THOUGHT PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CASA of Natrona County ↗
- Who funds Platte River Trails Trust ↗
- Who funds TROOPERS DRUM & BUGLE CORPS INC ↗
- Who funds Self Help Center Inc ↗
- Who funds Natrona County 4-H Council ↗
- Who funds MOTHER SETON HOUSING INC ↗
- Who funds Central Wyoming Junior Livestock Sale Inc ↗
- Who funds JASON'S FRIENDS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Special Olympics Wyoming Inc ↗
- Who funds Jae Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds Joshuas Storehouse and Distribution Center ↗
- Who funds Wreaths Across America ↗
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 McMurry Foundation · Wyoming Community Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Wold Foundation · Double 4 Foundation · Natrona Collective Health Trust · Zimmerman Family Foundation · Tate Foundation · Central Wyoming Chapter of the American Petroleum Institute · The John P Ellbogen Foundation · The Goodstein Foundation · Daniels Fund
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 Tw 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 Tw Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Tw 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.