· Private foundation
Achelis Foundation Dba Steven B Achelis 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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 47% of ACHELIS FOUNDATION DBA STEVEN B ACHELIS FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k28 grants · $100k
- $10k–50k9 grants · $90k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| EMPOWER MALI | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| FAMILY SCHOLAR HOUSE | $10,000 |
| LIFTING HAND INTERNATIONAL | $10,000 |
| STEMBLAZERS | $10,000 |
| BLESSING HANDS | $10,000 |
| Paul Sherwen Project | $10,000 |
| TANDIKA REVITALIZATION FUND | $10,000 |
| Protect Democracy Project | $10,000 |
| GIRLS SCOUTS OF UTAH | $9,000 |
| Catalino Tapia Scholarship Foundati | $8,000 |
| GIRL RISING | $7,000 |
| ROWLAND HALL ST MARKS | $6,500 |
| SAVE OUR CANYONS | $5,170 |
| RIGHT TO PLAY | $5,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $78k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% 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 +46% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
53 repeat relationships — 27 still active in FY2025, 26 since wound down; 9 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, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k 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
- CCCITIZENS COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR9× · 2017–2025 · $51k · revenue +42%
- CTCATALINO TAPIA SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATI9× · 2017–2025 · $48k · revenue +360%
- SWSOCCER WITHOUT BORDERS6× · 2019–2024 · $33k · revenue +201%
Funded once
- UWUNITED WAY OF JACKSON COUNTYone grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue +276%
- GIGWEN IFILL FUND FOR JOURNALISM EXCEone grant, 2017 · $5k
- HSHIGH SCHOOL TO COLLEGE GUIDE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue -83%
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.
Heal utah's mission is to protect utah's environment and its people by promoting clean air, clean energy, and comprehensive solutions to radioactive and toxic waste.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
Utah's promise (up) is committed to 100% of kids and families thriving. we unify leaders, partners, communities and systems to achieve that promise.
To secure equal rights and protections for lgbtq utahns and their families.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Utah foundation's mission is to produce objective, thorough and well- reasoned research and analysis that promotes the effective use of public resources, a thriving economy, a well-prepared workforce and a high quality of life for utahns.…
Compass champions, connects, and supports diverse scientist leaders to improve the well-being of people and nature.
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
We are utah's partner in philanthropy, pioneering innovation and collaboration to invest in our community today for a brighter tomorrow.
Wyofile is an independent, nonprofit news service focused on the people, places and policy of wyoming. recognizing the rapid decline in resources among traditional news outlets, wyofile offers in-depth coverage of complicated subjects and…
Building bridges across diverse sectors, and developing innovative technologies and tools for policy makers. a leader in the conflict assessment and early warning field, the fund for peace focuses on the problems of weak and failing…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Global Fund for Women Inc and the most unlike its peers is Paul Sherwen Project Inc. 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 20 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) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 3% 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.
53 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. 53 of the 83 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 CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR ↗
- Who funds CATALINO TAPIA SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATI ↗
- Who funds Girl Rising ↗
- Who funds SPORTS HUMANITARIAN GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds SOCCER WITHOUT BORDERS ↗
- Who funds MIKVA CHALLENGE GRANT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds PAUL SHERWEN PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds THE ROAD HOME ↗
- Who funds COLORADO WOMEN'S EDUCATION FOUNDATI ↗
- Who funds The Ann Richards School Foundation ↗
- Who funds BUILDING YOUTH AROUND THE WORLD ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR STUDENTS RISING ABOVE ↗
- Who funds Womens Sports Foundation ↗
- Who funds Crossroads Urban Center ↗
- Who funds GIRL SCOUTS OF UTAH ↗
- Who funds AUSTIN KIDS CAN ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL FUND FOR WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds FIT TO RECOVER INC ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE ↗
- Who funds THE ART OF YOGA PROJECT ↗
- Who funds COLOROFCHANGEORG ↗
- Who funds FRESH AIR FUND ↗
- Who funds Lifting Hands International ↗
- Who funds FAMILY SCHOLAR HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Empower Mali ↗
- Who funds SEAGER MEMORIAL CLINIC ↗
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: Sorenson Legacy Foundation · George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · David Kelby Johnson Memorial Foundation · Lawrence & Janet Dee Foundation · Dominion Energy Charitable Foundation · Marriner S Eccles Foundation · Ssir Cares Inc · The Community Foundation of Utah · Steiner Foundation Inc · Willard L Eccles Charitable Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Pacificorp Foundation Aka Pacific Power Foundation Aka Rocky Mountain Power Foundati
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 Achelis Foundation Dba Steven B Achelis 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.