Skip to content
William Howard Charitable Trust at a glance

· Charitable trust

William Howard Charitable Trust

To provide funding to its named beneficiary organizations which serve mentally or physically challenged children.

$983k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$509k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Youth Development$1.5MHealth$747kRecreation & Sports$705kHuman Services$145kEducation$62k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $111k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $354k
  • $250k+1 grant · $509k
$31,667
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER$509,169
PATRIOT'S GATEWAY COMMUNITY CENTER$241,077
BOYS AND GIRLS ASSOCIATION OF ROCKFORD$112,652
WALTER LAWSON CHILDREN'S HOME$35,093
YMCA$31,667
KEN-ROCK COMMUNITY CENTER$18,780
BARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE$14,330
BOOKER WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER$11,276
ARC OF WINNEBAGO BOONE AND OGLE COUNTIES$8,500
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 (FY17–25, $922k) 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%GOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER: $509k → 15%GOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER: $109k → 15%GOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER: $40k → 15%GOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER FOR CHILDREN: $12k → 15%ROCVALE CHILDREN'S HOME: $9k → 15%GOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER FOR CHILDREN: $10k → 15%ROCVALE CHILDREN'S HOME: $9k → 15%GOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER FOR CHILDREN: $10k → 15%ROCVALE CHILDREN'S HOME: $9k → 15%GOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER FOR CHILDREN: $10k → 15%ROCVALE CHILDREN'S HOME: $9k → 15%YMCA: $45k → 15%YMCA: $32k → 15%YMCA: $25k → 15%BARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE: $15k → 15%BARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE: $14k → 15%BARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE: $10k → 15%BARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE: $10k → 15%BARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE: $9k → 15%BARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE: $9k → 15%BARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE: $9k → 15%SWEDISH AMERICAN CHILDREN'S HOME AID: $10k → 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.
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.2M · 12 repeat orgs$33k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +49% since the first grant, against +41% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
3

Total granted

$3.2M
$33k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
+41%

Still filing today

92%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesRecreation & SportsCommunity ImprovementHealthOther
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

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ASSOCIATION OF ROCKFORD
    9× · 2017–2025 · $918k · revenue +123%
  • PG
    PATRIOTS' GATEWAY COMMUNITY CENTER
    8× · 2017–2025 · $815k · revenue +19%
  • GB
    GOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER
    7× · 2017–2025 · $700k · revenue +68%

Funded once

  • ES
    EASTER SEALS METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $20k · revenue +68%
  • CH
    CHILDREN'S HOME & AID SOCIETY OF ILLgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +41%
  • EF
    EPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF NORTHCENTRAL ILLINOIS INC
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
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
The Hope School

The hope learning academy serves children with intellectual/developmental disabilities and neurological disorders and their families by providing homes in which to grow, schools in which to learn, clinics in which to become healthier,…

Education
2
Oak Leyden Developmental Services Inc

To help people with developmental disabilities meet life's challenges and reach their highest potential.

—
3
Illinois Children's Healthcare Foundation
Human Services
4
Northeast Arc Inc

Helping adults and children with disabilities, (incl asd), become full participants in the community.

—
5
Easterseals Central Illinois

Easterseals central illinois provides exceptional services to ensure children with developmental delays, disabilities and other special needs can reach their full potential.

Health
6
Little City Foundation

To ensure that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are provided with the best options and opportunities to live safely, work productively, explore creatively, learn continuously and play pleasurably throughout their…

Human Services
7
Hope Clinical Care

Provide clinical and educational service and support to individuals with autism and related disorders.

Health
8
Marklund Childrens Home

The mission of Marklund is to make Everyday Life Possible for individuals with profound disabilities. Over the years, Marklund has gained the trust of more than 1800 families for meeting the residential, therapeutic, vocational and…

Human Services
9
Easter Seals North Texas

We help advance the independence of individuals with disabilities & other special needs.

Health
10
Garden Center Services

Advancing lives of connection, contribution and meaning for persons with developmental disabilities and the individuals that support them.

—
11
Arc of the Ozarks

To be a leader in service delivery for persons with disabilities by providing an array of supports and services to integrate them into their communities and to enhance the quality of their lives.

—
12
Easter Seals Midwest

To assist individuals with developmental disabilities, including autism, how to learn, live, work, and participate in the community.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Easter Seals Metropolitan Chicago Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ken-Rock Community Center 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

14 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. 14 of the 15 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)
13/14
Grantees still filing
10/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ASSOCIATION OF ROCKFORD: $917,652 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB ASSOCIATION OF ROCKFORDHOOSIER CARE INC: $192,810 · OtherHOOSIER CARE INCBOOKER WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER: $113,601 · OtherBOOKER WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTERSwedishAmerican Health Foundation: $45,870 · Other+3 more: $49,642 · OtherGOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER: $700,314 · Human ServicesGOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTERYMCA OF ROCK RIVER VALLEY: $101,667 · Human ServicesYMCA OF ROCK RIVER VALLEYBARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE: $76,055 · Human ServicesBARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPEMILESTONE INC: $34,400 · Human Services+1 more: $10,000 · Human ServicesPATRIOTS' GATEWAY COMMUNITY CENTER: $815,315 · Recreation & SportsPATRIOTS' GATEWAY COMMUNITY …KEN-ROCK COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $120,966 · Community ImprovementEASTER SEALS METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INC: $20,000 · Health
Other$1,319,575Human Services$922,436Recreation & Sports$815,315Community Improvement$120,966Health$20,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB ASSOCIATION OF ROCKFORD: $917,652 over 9y, 5.0% of budgetPATRIOTS' GATEWAY COMMUNITY CENTER: $815,315 over 8y, 24% of budgetGOLDIE B FLOBERG CENTER: $700,314 over 7y, 4.2% of budgetHOOSIER CARE INC: $192,810 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetKEN-ROCK COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $120,966 over 9y, 6.7% of budgetYMCA OF ROCK RIVER VALLEY: $101,667 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetBARBARA OLSON CENTER OF HOPE: $76,055 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetSwedishAmerican Health Foundation: $45,870 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetMILESTONE INC: $34,400 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetEASTER SEALS INC: $33,642 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEASTER SEALS METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ARC OF WINNEBAGO BOONE & OGLE: $13,500 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOME & AID SOCIETY OF ILL: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF NORTHCENTRAL ILLINOIS INC: $2,500 over 1y, 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.

Community Foundation …Blazer FoundationThe Kjellstrom Family…United Way of Rock Ri…Kiwanis Charities of …The Mill FoundationSjostrom & Sons Found…Guy Reno Family Found…Bergstrom Inc Charita…Northern Illinois Foo…The Minneapolis Found…American Endowment Fo…
Community Foundation of Northern ILIL26.2× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Northern IL · Blazer Foundation · The Kjellstrom Family Foundation · United Way of Rock River Valley · Kiwanis Charities of Rockford Inc · The Mill Foundation · Sjostrom & Sons Foundation · Guy Reno Family Foundation · Bergstrom Inc Charitable Foundation Xxxxx2008 · Northern Illinois Food Bank · The Minneapolis Foundation · American Endowment 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 Howard Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from William Howard Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to William Howard Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to William Howard Charitable Trust 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.

    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 15 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 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 Howard’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