How much did William and Ruth Scott Family Foundation grant in FY2024?

Education$19MPhilanthropy$5.7MCrime & Legal$1.8MHuman Services$1.1MYouth Development$965kHousing & Shelter$485kCommunity Improvement$255kHealth$160kInternational$40kOther$1.2M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2020

educationstudentssuccessfulleadershipinspirefacilitatewomen

2021

innerabide

2022

innerabide

2023

disordersinnerstressabide

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

$10k–50k6 grants · $120k
$50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$250k+1 grant · $400k

$25,000

Median grant

States reached

$215M

Total assets

Largest grants

Avenue Scholars Foundation$400,000
Alliance Recreation Center$50,000
Abide Network$25,000
Angels Among Us Inc$25,000
Autism Action Partnership$20,000
100 Black Men of Omaha Inc$20,000
Aqua Africa Inc$15,000
At Ease USA$15,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY20–20, $1.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

10%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$3.0M · 11 repeat orgs$28M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +72% since the first grant, against +69% for the ones you funded once.

11 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$3.0M

$28M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+72%

+69%

Still filing today

100%

95%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EducationHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentPhilanthropyCrime & LegalHealthOther

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

BU
Bellevue University
3× · 2020–2022 · $650k · revenue +99%
BB
Boone Beginnings Early Childh
3× · 2020–2022 · $393k · revenue +123%
BB
Big Brothers Big Sisters-Midl
3× · 2020–2022 · $140k · revenue +36%

Funded once

UO
University of Nebraska Foundagraduated
one grant, 2020 · $11M · revenue +35%
NC
Nebraska Children and Familiegraduated
one grant, 2020 · $5.5M · revenue +186%
PH
Project Harmonygraduated
one grant, 2020 · $1.8M · revenue +117%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

One Omaha

One omaha empowers people where they live with education, training, and engagement to develop thriving neighborhoods.

Community Improvement

Nebraska Community College Assoc

Support for community colleges

—

Nebraska Alliance of Child

To enhance nebraska's response to child abuse.

Crime & Legal

Nebraska Association for the

Committed to supporting high quality care and education for young children in nebraska.

Youth Development

Eastern Nebraska Community Action

Provide high-impact programs to help people get ahead.

—

Midwest Women and Children's Services

To provide information, education, technical assistance, and support services to child care providers and parents.

—

Educare of Lincoln Inc

Early childhood center that provides all-day, year-round care and education for economically disadvantaged children from birth to age five.

Education

Community Action of Nebraska Inc

To alleviate poverty and build the capacity of nebraska's community action agencies.

Community Improvement

Omaha Community Foundation

To serve the community by cultivating generosity and strengthening nonprofits.

Philanthropy

Nebraska Humanities Council

Humanities nebraska helps nebraskans explore what connects us and makes us human.

—

Council of Independent Nebraska Colleges

To enhance, promote and solicit support for foundation members and nebraska independent colleges.

—

North Omaha Collective

To build the capacity of youth serving organizations, service providers, families and community to claim their voice, cultivate healing and take courageous action to improve their overall health and well being.

Human Services

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Educare of Omaha Inc and the most unlike its peers is Bellevue University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 22. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 8% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/55

the rest of the field

496/6,414

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.

05the grantee network

53 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

53/53

Grantees still filing

38/53

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Education$19,009,451Philanthropy$5,747,979Crime & Legal$1,817,600Other$1,701,711Human Services$1,072,000Youth Development$965,000Housing & Shelter$485,000

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.

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.

The Sherwood FoundationNE79.2× affinity36 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Sherwood Foundation · The Lozier Foundation · Robert B Daugherty Foundation · Nebraska Community Foundation · Mutual of Omaha Foundation · Weitz Family Foundation · Leland J & Dorothy H Olson Charitable · Peter Kiewit Foundation · The Holland Foundation · Suzanne & Walter Scott Foundation · United Way of the Midlands · The Hawks Foundation

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 organisation William and Ruth Scott Family 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: Mid-Plains Community College.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~21 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 5 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

5 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +80% since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 202459157 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on Mid-Plains Community College, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 21 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 21% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to William and Ruth Scott Family Foundation?

Find your warmest path to William and Ruth Scott Family Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

William and Ruth Scott Family Foundation

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

53 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to William and Ruth Scott Family Foundation?

More from the funding graph

William and Ruth Scott Family Foundation

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

53 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to William and Ruth Scott Family Foundation?

More from the funding graph