Skip to content
W David Stedman & Sarah White Stedman Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

W David Stedman & Sarah White Stedman Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$200k
Granted FY2022
10
Grants FY2022
7
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2022.

Education$77kHealth$40kArts & Culture$25kHuman Services$25kAnimals$15kCrime & Legal$15kFood & Nutrition$15kPublic Benefit$10kOther$0
02FY2022 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$20,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHILDRENS HEALTH DEFENSE$40,000
GARY SINISE FOUNDATION$25,000
PROJECT VERITAS$25,000
HILLSDALE COLLEGE$20,000
TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION$20,000
FEED THE HUNGER$15,000
CAROLINA UNIVERSITY$15,000
PREVENT CHILD ABUSE NC$15,000
4 PAWS FOR ABILITY$15,000
JOHN LOCKE FOUNDATION$10,000
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 (FY22–22, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%4 PAWS FOR ABILITY: $15k → 9%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MI
NY
OH
NJ
CA
VA
NC
DC
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 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
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
2
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
3
Golden Gate University

Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…

Education
4
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
5
Coker University

Coker university is a student-centered, comprehensive university. it is dedicated to providing every student an academic curriculum based upon a uniformly excellent liberal arts core that enhances the structured development of key personal…

Education
6
Manhattanville University

To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.

Education
7
Norwich University

Norwich's mission is to give our youth an education that shall be American in its character.

Education
8
Fielding Graduate University

We provide exemplary interdisciplinary programs for a community of scholar-practitioners within a distributed learning model grounded in student-driven inquiry and leading to enhanced knowledge.

—
9
George Fox University

George fox university, a christ centered community, prepares students spiritually, academically, and professionally to think with clarity, act with integrity, and serve with passion.

Education
10
Drake University

See schedule o.drake's mission is to provide an exceptional learning environment that prepares students for meaningful personal lives, professional accomplishments, and responsible global citizenship. the drake experience is distinguished…

Education
11
Albright College

As a diverse community of learners, we cultivate integrity, curiosity, connection and resilience.

Education
12
Washington and Lee University

Mission statement of washington and lee university: washington and lee university provides a liberal arts education that develops students' capacity to think freely, critically, and humanely and to conduct themselves with honor, integrity,…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Health Defense; the most unlike its peers is Hillsdale College. 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

12 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. 12 of the 17 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PROJECT VERITAS: $25,000 · OtherPROJECT VERITASFEED THE HUNGER INC: $15,000 · OtherFEED THE HUNGER INCPositive Childhood Alliance North Carolina: $15,000 · OtherPositive Childhood Alliance North Carolin…THE JOHN LOCKE FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · OtherTHE JOHN LOCKE FOUNDATION INCUNC GREENSBORO: $9,039 · OtherUNC GREENSBOROFIRST UNITED METHODISST CHURCH: $3,814 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: $3,814 · Other+2 more: $3,050 · OtherHILLSDALE COLLEGE: $20,000 · EducationHILLSDALE COLLEGESTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $20,000 · EducationSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS F…CAROLINA UNIVERSITY: $15,000 · EducationCAROLINA UNIVERSITYGUILFORD COLLEGE: $9,040 · EducationGUILFORD COLLEGEDUKE UNIVERSITY: $3,800 · EducationDUKE UNIVERSITYCHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE: $40,000 · EnvironmentCHILDREN'S HEALTH D…GARY SINISE FOUNDATION: $25,000 · PhilanthropyGARY SINISE …4 PAWS FOR ABILITY INC: $15,000 · Human Services
Other$84,717Education$67,840Environment$40,000Philanthropy$25,000Human Services$15,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE: $40,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGARY SINISE FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHILLSDALE COLLEGE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFEED THE HUNGER INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budget4 PAWS FOR ABILITY INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCAROLINA UNIVERSITY: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPositive Childhood Alliance North Carolina: $15,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE JOHN LOCKE FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetGUILFORD COLLEGE: $9,040 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $3,800 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA5.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 W David Stedman & Sarah White Stedman Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from W David Stedman & Sarah White Stedman 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%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    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 17 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on W David Stedman & Sarah White Stedman’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