Skip to content
Arlene Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Arlene Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$80k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$60k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

International$661kPhilanthropy$231kCrime & Legal$73kEducation$45kRecreation & Sports$29kArts & Culture$17kCivil Rights$15kHousing & Shelter$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$3k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRIENDS OF IKAMVA LABANTU$60,200
FOCUSING PHILANTHROPY$10,000
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS$10,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY18–18, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ANGELS FOSTER CARE: $5k → 14%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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 6 repeat orgs$69k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +58% since the first grant, against +30% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
7

Total granted

$1.0M
$69k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+58%
+30%

Still filing today

100%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalEducationPhilanthropyRecreation & SportsArts & CultureHealthOther
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

  • FO
    FRIENDS OF IKAMVA LABANTU
    8× · 2017–2024 · $435k · revenue +115% · 45% of their budget
  • FP
    FOCUSING PHILANTHROPY INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $230k · revenue +15%
  • IM
    INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $226k · revenue +82%

Funded once

  • SH
    SHINING HOPE FOR COMMUNITIES INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue +89%
  • DH
    Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum
    one grant, 2017 · $17k · revenue -73%
  • S
    SHOFCO
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
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
All for Kids Organization

This year, all for kids provided 70,000 at-risk children and parents living in los angeles and orange counties with services that include school readiness, parenting classes, family resource centers, support groups, mental health…

Human Services
2
Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services

To provide comprehensive, family-centered social, educational and behavioral health services that encourage children, adolescents and their families to lead self reliant, stable and productive lives.

Human Services
3
Pathfinder International

Pathfinder expands access to sexual and reproductive health services, opening the door to opportunities for women and all individuals to thrive-economically, educationally, and civically. driven by our country-led leadership and local…

International
4
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation

The elizabeth glaser pediatric aids foundation (egpaf) is a proven leader in the fight against pediatric hiv/aids and has reached over 33 million pregnant women with services to prevent transmission of hiv to their babies. to date, egpaf…

Health
5
Management Sciences for Health Inc

(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.

International
6
Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation

The samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…

—
7
Children's Hospital & Research Center At Oakland

The mission of children's hospital & research center at oakland is to protect and advance the health and well-being of children through clinical care, teaching and research.

Health
8
Ackerman Institute for the Family

The institute is dedicated to the study, diagnosis and treatment of family relationship problems

Health
9
Los Angeles Police Foundation

The mission of lapf is to create partnerships to provide resources and programs that help the police perform at their highest level and to enhance lapd-community relations.(see schedule o)

Human Services
10
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
11
Allies for Every Child Inc

All children need a childhood. Allies for Every Child brings together and strengthens families, cultivating conditions for children to succeed in life. (Continues on Schedule O)

Human Services
12
The Leadership Foundation

The leadership foundation, inc. (the foundation), established in 1990, is the mechanism by which iwf members advance the next generation of women leaders. the foundation accelerates the careers of top-performing women by offering…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Focusing Philanthropy Inc; the most unlike its peers is Didi Hirsch Psychiatric Service. 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 14 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.

1
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

FRIENDS OF IKAMVA LABANTU: $434,882 · InternationalFRIENDS OF IKAMVA LABANTUINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS: $226,000 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPSFOCUSING PHILANTHROPY INC: $230,000 · PhilanthropyFOCUSING PHILANTHROPY IN…+1 more: $527 · PhilanthropyTHE RAPE FOUNDATION: $72,500 · OtherTHE RAPE F…SHOFCO: $15,000 · OtherSHOFCOPACIFIC PALISADES TASK FORCE ON HOMELESS: $10,000 · OtherPACIFIC PA…+1 more: $1,500 · OtherWILDWOOD SCHOOL INC: $25,000 · EducationSHINING HOPE FOR COMMUNITIES INC: $20,000 · EducationWATER BUFFALO CLUB INC DBA WE BENEFIT CHILDREN: $29,110 · Recreation & SportsDallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum: $16,667 · Arts & CultureANGELS FOSTER CARE OF SANTA BARBARA: $5,000 · Human ServicesDIDI HIRSCH PSYCHIATRIC SERVICE: $500 · Health
International$660,882Philanthropy$230,527Other$99,000Education$45,000Recreation & Sports$29,110Arts & Culture$16,667Human Services$5,000Health$500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFRIENDS OF IKAMVA LABANTU: $434,882 over 8y, 45% of budgetFOCUSING PHILANTHROPY INC: $230,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS: $226,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTHE RAPE FOUNDATION: $72,500 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetWATER BUFFALO CLUB INC DBA WE BENEFIT CHILDREN: $29,110 over 7y, 0.9% of budgetWILDWOOD SCHOOL INC: $25,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSHINING HOPE FOR COMMUNITIES INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum: $16,667 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetANGELS FOSTER CARE OF SANTA BARBARA: $5,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY FOUNDATION: $527 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDIDI HIRSCH PSYCHIATRIC SERVICE: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Arlene Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Arlene Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%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
    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 · 0–50%
    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.

    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 14 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Arlene’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