· Private foundation
William and Janita Smith Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $13k
- $10k–50k20 grants · $413k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Elijah Rising | $45,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $40,000 |
| Safe Families for Children WI | $35,000 |
| Naomis House | $30,000 |
| Alongsiders International Inc | $30,000 |
| Embrace Grace | $25,000 |
| Mount Zion Baptist Charitable | $25,000 |
| The GLO House | $25,000 |
| Agape House | $20,000 |
| Burlington Transitional Living Center Inc | $15,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $15,000 |
| House of Providence | $15,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $15,000 |
| Project 82 Kenya | $15,000 |
| Zoe International | $12,500 |
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 (FY18–25, $595k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 40% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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 +18% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
24 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $185k 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
- HWHEALING WATERS INTERNATIONAL INC4× · 2018–2021 · $138k · revenue +38%
- SFSAFE FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE5× · 2018–2022 · $137k · revenue +358%
- EGEmbrace Grace Inc7× · 2019–2025 · $137k · revenue +126%
Funded once
- AIAlongsiders International Incone grant, 2024 · $60k
- ZLZOE LIFE MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL INCone grant, 2018 · $38k
1000 Generations Incone grant, 2024 · $35k · revenue 0%
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.
Childrens Home and Ministry in India
We minister to orphans and widows in their distress by transitioning children from orphanages into loving families. We do this through Christ- centered care, training and social work.
We assist young mothers with housing and wrap around services.
We are compelled by god's word to provide security, education and the hope of jesus to children in south africa so they can thrive personally and impact their future families, communities and the kingdom of god.
The bridge 2 home is a safe and loving home for young girls and young women who were victimized by sex trafficking. at the bridge they can find healing and growth and can experience the love of a perfect heavenly father who pursues them.
The organization provides housing medical care education and loving support for homeless children in peru. the home is located in arequipa peru. the organization houses approximately 50 children and assists children no longer residing at…
To be an organization where people are excited to assist in the love and care of the orphan and those in foster care, as well as providing temporary housing and training for those in the worldwide missionary field.
Provide a home and care for unwed pregnant girls
See schedule oour mission is the integration of women and children into society, transformed through the power of healing and complete discipleship and vocational training within a safe, loving, and serving community. our vision is to see…
501 (c)(3) public charity
To assist in the rescue and care of abandoned and orphaned children in the developing world and to advocate for them by creating awareness of their plight within Christian churches.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hope Street Ministry Inc and the most unlike its peers is Embers International. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 21 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
23 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. 23 of the 46 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 Embers International ↗
- Who funds HEALING WATERS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds SAFE FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Embrace Grace Inc ↗
- Who funds PROJECT 82 KENYA INC ↗
- Who funds THE GLO HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds AGAPE HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds HOUSE OF PROVIDENCE ↗
- Who funds HEAL AND THRIVE GLOBAL ↗
- Who funds Elijah Rising ↗
- Who funds INVISIBLE GIRL PROJECT ↗
- Who funds 1000 Generations Inc ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN OF PROMISE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds ALONGSIDERS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds C24 7 FATHER'S ARMS MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds BURLINGTON TRANSITIONAL LIVING ↗
- Who funds THE LAKE COUNTY HAVEN ↗
- Who funds ZOE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds NEW HORIZONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds LIFE CHOICES INC ↗
- Who funds HOPE STREET MINISTRY INC ↗
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: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Kunes Family Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Arthur J Gallagher Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · Thrivent Charitable Impact & Investing · Servant Foundation · The Ayco Charitable Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc
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 William and Janita Smith 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 William and Janita Smith Foundation?
Find your warmest path to William and Janita Smith 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.