Skip to content
Dallas & Louise Anderson Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Dallas & Louise Anderson 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.

$117k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$33k
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.

Environment$675kScience & Tech$167kFood & Nutrition$130kRecreation & Sports$27kArts & Culture$3k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$28,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DUCKS UNLIMITED MINNESOTA$33,000
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS$28,000
ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE$28,000
MINNESOTA LAND TRUST$28,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 82% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: $28k → 8%SECOND HARVEST HEARTLAND: $40k → 11%SECOND HARVEST HEARTLAND: $10k → 14%ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION: $12k → 10%NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL: $25k → 17%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $15k → 14%DUCKS UNLIMITED MINNESOTA: $33k → 17%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $28k → 12%THE CONSERVATION FUND: $15k → 7%UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: $25k → 8%SECOND HARVEST HEARTLAND: $10k → 14%ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL: $22k → 17%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $15k → 14%DUCKS UNLIMITED MINNESOTA: $31k → 17%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $27k → 12%THE CONSERVATION FUND: $15k → 7%UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: $22k → 8%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $28k → 14%ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL: $20k → 17%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $14k → 14%DUCK'S UNLIMITED MINNESOTA: $30k → 17%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $25k → 12%CONSERVATION FUND: $15k → 7%UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: $20k → 8%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $25k → 14%ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL: $15k → 17%DUCKS UNLIMITED MINNESOTA: $27k → 17%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $25k → 12%CONSERVATION FUND: $15k → 7%UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: $20k → 8%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $22k → 14%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $15k → 17%DUCKS UNLIMITED MINNESOTA: $25k → 17%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $20k → 12%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $20k → 14%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $15k → 17%DUCKS UNLIMITED MN: $25k → 17%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $20k → 14%DUCK'S UNLIMITED MINNESOTA: $25k → 17%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $15k → 14%DUCKS UNLIMITED MN: $20k → 17%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $15k → 14%DUCK'S UNLIMITED MINNESOTA: $15k → 17%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $15k → 14%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $15k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
NY
MA
CA
CO
VA
TN
DC
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.
$999k · 10 repeat orgs$3k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +96% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
1

Total granted

$999k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+96%
+12%

Still filing today

90%
100%

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
EnvironmentInternationalFood & 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

  • ML
    MINNESOTA LAND TRUST
    9× · 2017–2025 · $175k · revenue +403%
  • Rocky Mountain Institute
    7× · 2018–2025 · $140k · revenue +313%
  • THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC
    6× · 2019–2025 · $125k · revenue +6%

Funded once

  • MH
    MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
    one grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +12%
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
Fresh Energy

Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.

Environment
2
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
3
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
4
Environment Now
—
5
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
6
Friends of the Earth

Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…

Environment
7
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

The minnesota center for environmental advocacy is a nonprofit organization that uses law, science and research to protect minnesota's environment, its natural resources and the health of its people.

Environment
8
Climate Institute

The climate institute is organized for the purpose of educating the general public and policy makers as to the gravity of potential climate change, exploring the policy implications of the latest scientific findings on climate modelling…

Environment
9
Earth & Space Research

Increase societal understanding of the earth system through scientific research and education.

Science & Tech
10
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
11
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
12
Alliance for Sustainable Energy Llc

The mission of the alliance for sustainable energy llc (alliance) is to operate the u.s. department of energy's national renewable energy laboratory to advance the science and engineering of energy efficiency, sustainable transportation,…

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated; the most unlike its peers is Rocky Mountain Institute. 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

10 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. 10 of the 11 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
10/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $175,000 · EnvironmentMINNESOTA LAND TRUSTNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $112,000 · EnvironmentNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INCTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $60,000 · EnvironmentTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATIONENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $54,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDDucks Unlimited Inc: $45,000 · EnvironmentDucks Unlimited IncDUCKS UNLIMITED MINNESOTA: $186,000 · OtherDUCKS UNLIMITED MINNESOTARocky Mountain Institute: $140,000 · OtherRocky Mountain InstituteElectronic Frontier Foundation Inc: $42,000 · OtherElectronic Frontier Foundation IncTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $125,000 · InternationalTHE UNION OF C…SECOND HARVEST HEARTLAND: $60,000 · Food & NutritionMINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $3,000 · Arts & Culture
Environment$446,000Other$368,000International$125,000Food & Nutrition$60,000Arts & Culture$3,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $175,000 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $140,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $125,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $112,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST HEARTLAND: $60,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $60,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $54,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc: $45,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetElectronic Frontier Foundation Inc: $42,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $3,000 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.

  • Who funds MINNESOTA LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds Rocky Mountain Institute ↗
  • Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
  • Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds SECOND HARVEST HEARTLAND ↗
  • Who funds THE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds Ducks Unlimited Inc ↗
  • Who funds Electronic Frontier Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Dallas & Louise Anderson Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Dallas & Louise Anderson Foundation. 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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Dallas & Louise Anderson Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Dallas & Louise Anderson Foundation 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 11 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 Dallas & Louise Anderson’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