Skip to content

· Private foundation

Anzalone Charitable Trust Main

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.

$318k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$64k
Largest
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.

Health$737kAnimals$295kFood & Nutrition$295kArts & Culture$147k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $191k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $127k
$31,809
Median grant
3
States reached
$5.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC$63,618
LANAKILA PACIFIC$63,618
MEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC$31,809
ON LOK INC$31,809
PROJECT OPEN HAND$31,809
OAHU SPCA$31,809
HONOLULU ACADEMY OF ARTS$31,809
SAN FRANCISCO SPCA$31,809
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 (FY20–25, $295k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%LANAKILA PACIFIC: $68k → 9%LANAKILA PACIFIC: $64k → 9%LANAKILA PACIFIC: $59k → 9%LANAKILA PACIFIC: $53k → 9%LANAKILA PACIFIC: $46k → 9%LANAKILA PACIFIC: $7k → 9%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 9 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
0

Total granted

$1.5M
$0

Still filing today

89%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsHealthHuman ServicesFood & NutritionArts & CultureOther
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

  • LP
    LANAKILA PACIFIC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $295k · revenue +28%
  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $147k · revenue +28%
  • PO
    Project Open Hand
    6× · 2020–2025 · $147k · revenue +78%

Funded once

    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
    Meals on Wheels by Acc

    Our mission is to serve nutritious meals with a friendly smile to seniors in Sacramento County.

    Food & Nutrition
    2
    Asian Health Services

    Asian Health Services (AHS) provides a continuum of medical care, mental health care, dental care and other healthcare services for all, including health education; perinatal services; behavioral health; family and youth services;…

    Health
    3
    Kahala Senior Living Community Inc

    In the spirit of ohana, kahala senior living community and its associates are dedicated to serving the unmet needs of seniors in hawaii. we are a not-for-profit organization that provides a continuum of high quality residential and health…

    Housing & Shelter
    4
    Council on Aging Services for Seniors

    To enhance the quality of life for our aging community by providing services that promote wellbeing and maintain independence.

    —
    5
    Friends of Oakland Animal Services

    Our mission is to provide homes, health, and happiness to oakland's animals in need. our primary focus has been to fund programs and activities at oakland animal services to greatly increase lifesaving of shelter animals.

    Animals
    6
    Hui Pohala

    Palliative care is a win-win-win-win. expanding access to palliative care benefits all parts of the healthcare system. people living with serious illness are better able to manage physical and emotional symptoms and have peace of mind that…

    Health
    7
    Waimanalo Health Center

    Waimanalo health center is committed to providing the highest level of primary and preventive health services, with special attention to the needs of native hawaiians and the medically underserved, and improving the health and wellness of…

    Health
    8
    Sutter Bay Hospitals

    MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

    Health
    9
    Asian and Pacific Islander Wellness Center Inc

    Our core belief at San Francisco Community Health Center is that everyone deserves to be healthy and needs access to the highest quality health care. Our mission is to transform lives by advancing health, wellness and equality.

    Health
    10
    Meals On Wheels of Alameda County

    MOWAC's mission is to assist frail, homebound seniors to maintain their independence by fundraising and providing financial support, community outreach and strategic assistance to Meals on Wheels programs in Alameda County that deliver…

    Food & Nutrition
    11
    Molokai Ohana Health Care Inc

    To provide and promote accessible comprehensive individual and community health care to the people of molokai with respect and aloha.

    Health
    12
    Altamed Health Services Corporation

    To eliminate disparities in health care access and outcomes by providing superior quality health and human services through an integrated world-class delivery system for latino, multi-ethnic underserved communities in southern california.

    Health
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Meals On Wheels of San Francisco Inc; the most unlike its peers is Honolulu Museum of Art. 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

    8 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. 8 of the 9 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)
    1
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    8/8
    Grantees still filing
    7/8
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $175,090 · HealthAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY …ON LOK INC: $147,440 · HealthON LOK INCLANAKILA PACIFIC: $294,880 · Human ServicesLANAKILA PACIFICTHE SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $147,440 · AnimalsTHE SAN FRANCISCO SOCI…Oahu Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Anim: $147,440 · AnimalsOahu Society for the P…MEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC: $147,440 · OtherMEALS ON WHEELS OF S…AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $119,790 · OtherAMERICAN CANCER SOCI…Project Open Hand: $147,440 · Food & NutritionProject Ope…HONOLULU MUSEUM OF ART: $147,440 · Arts & CultureHONOLULU MU…
    Health$322,530Human Services$294,880Animals$294,880Other$267,230Food & Nutrition$147,440Arts & Culture$147,440

    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 budgetLANAKILA PACIFIC: $294,880 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $175,090 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC: $147,440 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetProject Open Hand: $147,440 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetHONOLULU MUSEUM OF ART: $147,440 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetTHE SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $147,440 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetOahu Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Anim: $147,440 over 6y, 1.8% of budgetON LOK INC: $147,440 over 6y, 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.

    • Who funds LANAKILA PACIFIC ↗
    • Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
    • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC ↗
    • Who funds Project Open Hand ↗
    • Who funds HONOLULU MUSEUM OF ART ↗
    • Who funds THE SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
    • Who funds Oahu Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Anim ↗
    • Who funds ON LOK INC ↗

    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.

    Stupski FoundationCA14.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Stupski Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

    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 Anzalone Charitable Trust Main funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Anzalone Charitable Trust Main. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
      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 9 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 Anzalone Charitable Trust Main’s filings →

      More from the funding graph