Skip to content
Willey Amasa P Tuw at a glance

· Private foundation

Willey Amasa P Tuw

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.

$9k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Health$16kReligion$15kMembership Benefit$8kYouth Development$8kEducation$2kPublic Benefit$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,135
Median grant
2
States reached
$141k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$1,891
EDGEWOOD CENTER CHILDREN & FAMILIES$1,135
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH$1,135
S F LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOC$1,135
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SF$1,135
MARYSVILLE COMMANDERY 7 KT$757
WASHINGTON CHAPTER 13 RAM$757
CORINTHIAN LODGE NO 9 F AND AM$757
CHERRYFIELD FREE LIBRARY ASSOC$300
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%EDGEWOOD CENTER CHILDREN & FAMILIES: $1k → 10%MARYSVILLE COMMANDERY NO 7 KT: $2k → 14%CORINTHIAN LODGE NO 9 F AND AM: $757 → 15%TOWN OF CHERRYFIELD: $2k → 16%EDGEWOOD CENTER CHILDREN & FAMILIES: $1k → 10%MARYSVILLE COMMANDERY 7 KT: $757 → 14%CORINTHIAN LODGE NO 9 F AND AM: $757 → 15%TOWN OF CHERRYFIELD: $2k → 16%EDGEWOOD CENTER CHILDREN & FAMILIES: $1k → 10%MARYSVILLE COMMANDERY 7 KT: $757 → 14%CORINTHIAN LODGE NO 9 F AND AM: $757 → 15%TOWN OF CHERRYFIELD: $2k → 16%EDGEWOOD CENTER CHILDREN & FAMILIES: $1k → 10%MARYSVILLE COMMANDERY 7 KT: $757 → 14%CORINTHIAN LODGE NO 9 F AND AM: $757 → 15%TOWN OF CHERRYFIELD: $2k → 16%EDGEWOOD CENTER CHILDREN & FAMILIES: $1k → 10%MARYSVILLE COMMANDERY NO 7 KT: $757 → 14%CORINTHIAN LODGE NO 9 F AND AM: $757 → 15%TOWN OF CHERRYFIELD: $2k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SF: $1k → 10%MARYSVILLE COMMANDERY 7 KT: $757 → 14%CORINTHIAN LODGE NO 9 F AND AM: $757 → 15%TOWN OF CHERRYFIELD: $2k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SF: $1k → 10%MARYSVILLE COMMANDERY 7 KT: $757 → 14%FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: $1k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SF: $1k → 10%FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: $1k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SF: $1k → 10%FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: $1k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SF: $1k → 10%OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF: $1k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SF: $1k → 10%FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: $1k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SF: $1k → 10%FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: $1k → 16%S F LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOC: $1k → 10%FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: $1k → 16%S F LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOC: $1k → 10%FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: $1k → 16%S F LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOC: $1k → 10%S F LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOC: $1k → 10%S F LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOC: $1k → 10%S F LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOC: $1k → 10%S F LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOC: $1k → 10%EDGEWOOD CENTER CHILDREN & FAMILIES: $1k → 10%EDGEWOOD CENTER CHILDREN & FAMILIES: $1k → 10%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$62k · 10 repeat orgs$1k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
1

Total granted

$62k
$1k

Still filing today

20%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    7× · 2018–2024 · $12k
  • FB
    FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
    7× · 2018–2024 · $8k
  • EC
    EDGEWOOD CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
    7× · 2018–2024 · $8k · revenue +7%

Funded once

  • OO
    OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
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
04the grantee network

2 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. 2 of the 11 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
2/2
Grantees still filing
1/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $12,103 · OtherIndividual grant recipientFIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: $7,945 · OtherFIRST BAPTIST CHURCHBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SF: $7,945 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SFCORINTHIAN LODGE NO 9 F AND AM: $5,299 · OtherCORINTHIAN LODGE NO 9 F AND AMWASHINGTON CHAPTER 13 RAM: $4,542 · OtherWASHINGTON CHAPTER 13 RAMMARYSVILLE COMMANDERY 7 KT: $3,785 · OtherMARYSVILLE COMMANDERY 7 KTMARYSVILLE COMMANDERY NO 7 KT: $2,270 · OtherCHERRYFIELD FREE LIBRARY ASSOC: $2,100 · Other+1 more: $1,135 · OtherEDGEWOOD CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: $7,945 · HealthEDGEWOOD CENTER FOR CHILDREN…SAN FRANCISCO LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOCIETY: $7,945 · HealthSAN FRANCISCO LADIES PROTECT…
Other$47,124Health$15,890

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEDGEWOOD CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: $7,945 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetSAN FRANCISCO LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOCIETY: $7,945 over 7y, 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 EDGEWOOD CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ↗
  • Who funds SAN FRANCISCO LADIES PROTECTION AND RELIEF SOCIETY ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Willey Amasa P Tuw funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Willey Amasa P Tuw. 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%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 11 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 Willey Amasa P Tuw’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