Skip to content
William C Borst Trust Uw at a glance

· Private foundation

William C Borst Trust Uw

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.

$567k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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 2025.

Animals$2.3MEducation$493kPhilanthropy$329kHealth$125k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $115k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $452k
$50,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$9.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LEWIS CLARK LAW SCHOOL$100,000
NATIONAL ANTIVIVISECTION SOCIETY$75,000
DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE$70,000
UNITED WAY WORLDWIDE$56,600
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND$50,000
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES$50,000
DOGS FOR BETTER LIVES$50,000
MORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION$45,000
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION$40,000
THREE LITTLE PITTIES RESCUE$30,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 71% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%AMERICAN ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY: $133k → 7%ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: $60k → 9%ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: $50k → 12%ASPCA: $50k → 17%THREE LITTLE PITTIES RESCUE: $30k → 14%HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES: $100k → 14%LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL: $133k → 12%DOGS FOR BETTER LIVES: $70k → 13%MORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $125k → 12%NATIONAL ANTIVIVISECTION SOCIETY: $125k → 14%UNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $57k → 9%HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES: $133k → 8%AMERICAN ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY: $130k → 7%ANIMAL DEFENSE LEGAL FUND: $60k → 9%AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF: $125k → 17%HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES: $50k → 14%LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL: $130k → 12%DOGS FOR BETTER LIVES: $65k → 13%MORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $100k → 12%NATIONAL ANTIVIVISECTION SOCIETY: $75k → 14%UNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $53k → 9%HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES: $125k → 8%ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: $50k → 9%ASPCA: $47k → 17%LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL: $130k → 12%DOGS FOR BETTER LIVES: $50k → 13%MORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $45k → 12%NATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY: $50k → 14%HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES: $100k → 8%THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION: $40k → 17%CENTER FOR ANIMAL LAW STUDIES AT L&W LAW: $100k → 12%MORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $20k → 12%LEWIS CLARK LAW SCHOOL: $100k → 12%MILE HIGH UNITED WAY: $69k → 12%DENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE: $125k → 12%DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE: $100k → 12%DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE: $70k → 12%MAXFUND DOG SHELTER: $10k → 12%MAXFUND DOG SHELTER: $10k → 12%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

IL
NY
OR
PA
CA
CO
VA
MD
DC
TX
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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.8M · 11 repeat orgs$355k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
2

Total granted

$2.8M
$225k

Still filing today

91%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $130k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’23’24’25
AnimalsPhilanthropyOther
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

  • HW
    Humane World for Animals Inc
    5× · 2020–2025 · $508k · revenue +67%
  • DD
    DENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE
    3× · 2023–2025 · $295k · revenue +271%
  • MA
    MORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION
    4× · 2021–2025 · $290k · revenue +16%

Funded once

  • AS
    AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF
    one grant, 2023 · $125k
  • CF
    CENTER FOR ANIMAL LAW STUDIES AT L&W LAW
    one grant, 2024 · $100k
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
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
2
Animal Wellness Action

To prevent cruelty to animals, we promote enacting and enforcing good public policies. enacting good laws depends upon electing good lawmakers, and we remind voters which candidates care about and support animal issues.

Human Services
3
Humane World for Animals International

HUMANE WORLD FOR ANIMALS INTERNATIONAL, FKA HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (HSI), works around the globe to promote the human-animal bond, rescue and protect dogs and cats, improve farm animal welfare, protect wildlife, promote animal-free…

Animals
4
American Humane Association

Founded in 1877, american humane association, dba american humane society (american humane) is committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals. our leadership programs are first to serve in promoting and nurturing the…

Animals
5
Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit dba Caru Spca

The Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit's primary mission is to prevent cruelty to animals.

Human Services
6
Humane World Action Fund

To pass animal protection laws, educate the public, and support humane candidates for office.

Animals
7
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc

Protection of animal rights

Animals
8
World Animal Protection

World animal protection is a global organization working to end factory farming and wildlife exploitation. we expose cruel systems, promote animal-friendly alternatives, and influence policy change. for over 75 years, we've been rewriting…

Animals
9
Environmental and Animal Defense

At Environmental and Animal Defense, our mission is to provide Colorado with access to affordable legal services for environmental and animal issues, in addition to protecting wildlife and their habitats through enforcement of the law. No…

Crime & Legal
10
Animal Protection New Mexico

To protect animals by creating systemic change resulting in the humane treatment of all animals. we create policies, infrastructure, and services that protect animals and strengthen our communities, and we design and implement humane and…

Animals
11
The Animal Welfare Foundation
—
12
Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Morris Animal Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Three Little Pitties Rescue. 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 16 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
10/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Humane World for Animals Inc: $507,500 · AnimalsHumane World for Animals IncDENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE: $295,000 · AnimalsDENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUEMORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $290,000 · AnimalsMORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATIONTHE AMERICAN ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY: $262,500 · AnimalsTHE AMERICAN ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETYNATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY: $250,000 · AnimalsNATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETYANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC: $220,000 · AnimalsANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INCDOGS FOR THE DEAF INC DBA DOGS FOR BETTER LIVES: $185,000 · AnimalsDOGS FOR THE DEAF INC DBA DOGS FOR BETTER LIVESTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $136,500 · AnimalsTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS+2 more: $50,000 · AnimalsLEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL: $392,500 · OtherLEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOLAMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF: $125,000 · OtherAMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE …CENTER FOR ANIMAL LAW STUDIES AT L&W LAW: $100,000 · OtherCENTER FOR ANIMAL LAW STU…LEWIS CLARK LAW SCHOOL: $100,000 · OtherLEWIS CLARK LAW SCHOOLMILE HIGH UNITED WAY INC: $219,429 · PhilanthropyMILE HIGH U…UNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $109,294 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY …
Animals$2,196,500Other$717,500Philanthropy$328,723

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 budgetHumane World for Animals Inc: $507,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetDENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE: $295,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetMORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $290,000 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetTHE AMERICAN ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY: $262,500 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetNATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY: $250,000 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC: $220,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetMILE HIGH UNITED WAY INC: $219,429 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetDOGS FOR THE DEAF INC DBA DOGS FOR BETTER LIVES: $185,000 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $136,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $109,294 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE MAXFUND INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.2% 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.

Jpmorgan Chase Founda…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Jpmorgan Chase FoundationNY12× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 William C Borst Trust Uw funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from William C Borst Trust Uw. 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–10%
    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 16 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on William C Borst Trust Uw’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