Skip to content

· Private foundation

Ward Family Charitable Foundation Trust

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.

$155k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$70k
Largest
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Recreation & Sports$73kHealth$45kHuman Services$42kEducation$34kReligion$5kArts & Culture$5kInternational$2kPhilanthropy$750Other$0
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $83k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $70k
$41,250
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GHS VOLLEYBALL BOOSTER CLUB$70,075
CHILDRENS MERCY HOSPITAL FDTN$41,250
SETON CENTER$41,250
CHILDRENS MERCY HOSPITAL FDTN$2,525
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, $550) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%KANSAS CITY HOSPICE: $550 → 15%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

WI
NY
OH
NJ
CA
CO
NE
MO
MD
KS
AL
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.

41%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$86k · 12 repeat orgs$124k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +27% since the first grant, against +3% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
17

Total granted

$86k
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
+3%

Still filing today

25%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 27% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $114k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHuman ServicesCrime & LegalFood & NutritionPublic BenefitOther
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

  • SC
    Seton Center Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $42k · revenue +27%
  • DC
    Donnelly College
    5× · 2017–2022 · $14k · revenue +166%
  • SP
    SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $650 · revenue +13%

Funded once

  • ST
    ST THOMAS MORE PARISH
    one grant, 2017 · $4k
  • OB
    OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH INC
    one grant, 2021 · $2k · revenue +3%
  • CW
    CHRIS WARD MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $750
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
Catholic Charities of Kansas City - St Joseph Inc

Helping people move to a better life through hope-filled care, services, and advocacy; calling all those of goodwill to join us

Human Services
2
The Food Bank for Central & Northeast Missouri

The food bank for central & northeast missouri is a regional disaster and hunger relief network that acquires and distributes millions of meals each year to help neighbors get the food they need to thrive. (continued on schedule o)the…

Food & Nutrition
3
Healthcore Clinic Inc

The mission of healthcore clinic, inc is to provide quality family healthcare through improved access and a heightened and unrelenting focus on education and prevention.

Health
4
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…

Community Improvement
5
Ascension Health

Rooted in the loving ministry of Jesus as healer, we commit ourselves to serving all persons with special attention to those who are poor and vulnerable. Our Catholic health ministry is dedicated to spiritually centered, holistic care,…

Health
6
Kansas City Care Clinic

The mission of kc care health center is to promote health and wellness by providing quality care, access, research and education to the underserved and all people in our community.

—
7
Mental Health Center of East Central Kansas

To provide dynamic, culturally-sensitive, high quality behavioral healthcare to residents of chase, coffey, greenwood, lyon, morris, osage and wabaunsee counties in the most effective, caring and efficient manner.

Health
8
Ability Kc

Our mission is to build brighter futures for children and adults with disabilities by providing comprehensive medical, therapeutic, educational, and vocational services.

—
9
Bionexus Kc

We inspire thinkers from different disciplines to combine their efforts for a common purpose: healthcare innovation.(continued on schedule o)from bioinformatics to cancer research and beyond, we stimulate collaboration and help bring…

Science & Tech
10
Sinnissippi Centers Inc

It is the mission of sinnissippi centers, inc. to provide quality, coordinated and responsive behavioral healthcare services to individuals, families and the communities we serve.

Health
11
Catholic Charities of Central and Northern Missouri

Inspired by the gospel of the beatitudes as proclaimed by Jesus Christ, Catholic Charities of Central and Northern Missouri is committed to providing care and creating hope for the lives of the vulnerable through compassionate social…

Human Services
12
St Patrick Center

St. patrick center transforms lives through sustainable housing, employment and healthcare, following the compassion of jesus.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Operation Breakthrough Inc; the most unlike its peers is Kansas City Hospice Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 31 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GHS VOLLEYBALL BOOSTER CLUB: $70,075 · OtherGHS VOLLEYBALL BOOSTER CLUBCHILDRENS MERCY HOSPITAL FDTN: $43,775 · OtherCHILDRENS MERCY HOSPITAL FDTNSeton Center Inc: $41,550 · OtherSeton Center IncBISHOP WARD HIGH SCHOOL: $9,600 · Other+19 more: $26,595 · Other+19 moreDonnelly College: $14,000 · EducationOPERATION BREAKTHROUGH INC: $1,500 · Education+1 more: $500 · EducationKansas City Hospice Inc: $550 · Human ServicesBRIGHT FUTURES CONNECTIONS FOR SUCCESS: $375 · Human ServicesSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $650 · Crime & LegalJourney to New Life INC: $300 · Public BenefitHARVESTERS - THE COMMUNITY FOOD NETWORK: $150 · Food & Nutrition
Other$191,595Education$16,000Human Services$925Crime & Legal$650Public Benefit$300Food & Nutrition$150

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSeton Center Inc: $41,550 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetDonnelly College: $14,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetOPERATION BREAKTHROUGH INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $650 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetKansas City Hospice Inc: $550 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE LEAP FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBRIGHT FUTURES CONNECTIONS FOR SUCCESS: $375 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetJourney to New Life INC: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHARVESTERS - THE COMMUNITY FOOD NETWORK: $150 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.

  • Who funds Seton Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds Donnelly College ↗
  • Who funds OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Kansas City Hospice Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE LEAP FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds BRIGHT FUTURES CONNECTIONS FOR SUCCESS ↗
  • Who funds Journey to New Life INC ↗
  • Who funds HARVESTERS - THE COMMUNITY FOOD NETWORK ↗

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.

Greater Kansas City Community FoundationMO17.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Kansas City Community Foundation · Constance M Cooper Charitable Foundation · Greater Horizons · Joseph M Fahey and Mary Elizabeth Rogers Fahey Foundation Inc · The McGee Foundation · McCullough Family Foundation · John W and Effie E Speas Memorial Trust · Kelly Family Foundation · John J Sullivan Jr Foundation John Houlehan & Mark Henke-Trustees · The H & R Block Foundation · Health Forward Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust

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 Ward Family Charitable Foundation Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ward Family Charitable Foundation Trust. 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 31 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 Ward Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph