Skip to content
DDM Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

DDM 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.

$1.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$215k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Animals$1.7MPhilanthropy$1.3MHuman Services$1.3MReligion$1.2MEducation$930kYouth Development$875kHousing & Shelter$474kCivil Rights$118kOther$0
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $80k
  • $50k–250k12 grants · $1.2M
$75,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$9.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
San Antonio Area Foundation$215,000
Girls on the Run$130,000
University of Redlands$125,000
Interfaith Welcome Coalition$100,000
Spay-Neuter Assistance Program$100,000
House of Neighborly Service$100,000
Texas Impact Education Fund$100,000
San Antonio Pets Alive$75,000
Texas Gun Sense$75,000
Christian Assistance Ministry$75,000
They Have a Right to Live$75,000
Individual grant recipient$65,000
Dizzy Dog Animal Rescue$45,000
SNIPSA$25,000
Building Hope Together$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 (FY17–25, $1.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 86% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTATION SERVICES: $187k → 16%House of Neighborly Service: $100k → 11%FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES: $65k → 16%House of Neighborly Service: $100k → 11%FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES: $65k → 16%FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES: $65k → 16%FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTATION SERVICES: $55k → 16%Christian Assistance Ministry: $75k → 16%CHRISTIAN ASSISTANCE MINISTRIES: $64k → 16%HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE: $100k → 16%CHRISTIAN ASSISTANCE MINISTRY: $35k → 16%HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE: $100k → 16%Christian Assistance Ministry: $25k → 16%HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE: $65k → 16%CHRISTIAN ASSISTANCE MINISTRY: $25k → 16%HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE: $65k → 16%CHRISTIAN ASSISTANCE MINISTRY: $25k → 16%HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICES: $50k → 16%CHRISTIAN ASSISTANCE MINISTRY: $12k → 16%HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE: $50k → 16%CHRISTIAN ASSISTANCE MINISTRY: $10k → 16%HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICES: $50k → 16%SA HOPE CENTER: $8k → 16%SA HOPE CENTER: $8k → 16%SA Hope Center: $5k → 16%SA HOPE CENTER: $4k → 16%SA Hope Center: $3k → 16%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.9M · 21 repeat orgs$296k to everyone else

21 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
13

Total granted

$7.9M
$261k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+26%
+93%

Still filing today

67%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k 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 ServicesAnimalsReligionEducationYouth DevelopmentInternationalOther
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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.0M · revenue +3%
  • SA
    San Antonio Pets Alive Inc
    7× · 2017–2025 · $849k · revenue +68%
  • GO
    Girls on the Run of Bexar County
    7× · 2017–2023 · $745k · revenue +76% · 41% of their budget

Funded once

  • BC
    BURTON CAMP & CONFERENCE CENTER
    one grant, 2020 · $100k
  • LG
    LANDA GARDENS CONSERVANCYgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $35k · revenue +93%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $30k
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
Humane Society of San Antonio (Audit)

To protect and improve the lives of dogs and cats by providing shelter, care, adoption, rescue, spay & neuter programs and community education.

Animals
2
Animal Resource Center Inc

To prevent the overpopulation of cats and dogs by funding spay and neuter services for domestic animals owned by the residents of San Antonio and Bexar County. To develop, promote, and sponsor programs of education to encourage better…

—
3
Central Texas Spca

Rescue neglected, unwanted homeless dogs and cats nurture and provide shelter until they are placed with a forever family strive to reduce animal overpopulation prevent cruelty to animals teach responsible pet ownership through an outreach…

Animals
4
Helotes Humane Society

Rescue and place abandoned and unwanted pets. Provide low cost spay / neuter. Provide low-cost microchips. Provide community education.

Animals
5
Humane Society of Central Texas

As an advocate for the community goal of maintaining its no kill status, the humane society provides adoption, rescue and foster opportunities for the homeless animals at the city of waco animal shelter, as well as community education…

Animals
6
South Texas Animal Rescue Group

We own and operate a spay/neuter and wellness clinic. Our purpose is to end animal cruelty in Texas, spay/neuter, vaccinate, and end the dumping and abandonment of cats and dogs. We also have an education program to teach Texas residents…

Animals
7
The Humane Society of Austin & Travis County Inc

The austin humane society (ahs) offers comprehensive, humane, life-saving animal services, transforming the lives of animals and those who love them. because we believe homeless animals deserve a chance to thrive in a loving environment,…

Animals
8
Fix West Texas

Fix West Texas mission is to lower the local euthanasia rate dogs and cats put to sleep in our local shelter due to lack of space and to lower intakes number of dogs and cats taken in by the local shelter and local rescues in our West…

Animals
9
Humane Society of Harris County

Humane Society of Harris County's mission remains steadfast: to provide high-quality adoption, transport, foster, Trap, neuter, release, and pet food pantry services to our community. Yet, with a fresh perspective and a renewed passion,…

—
10
Lone Star Sanctuary for Animals Inc

Shelter, food and veterniary care provided for animals in a clean shelter environment. this is a no-kill facility. animals are neutered, vaccinated, microchipped prior to being adopted. every effort is made to educate the community about…

Animals
11
Humane Society of Taos Inc dba Stray Hearts Animal Shelter

Stray Hearts is a socially conscious shelter and adoption facility reuniting lost pets with their families and providing humane care and shelter for surrendered, lost, and homeless companion animals in Taos County, New Mexico.Our pledge:…

Animals
12
Houston Pets Alive

Houston Pets Alive!s (HPA!) mission is to save the lives of at-risk companion cats and dogs and find them loving homes.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is San Antonio Area Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Puentes De Cristo 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

21 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. 21 of the 37 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/21
Grantees still filing
13/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION: $860,000 · OtherSAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATIONGirls on the Run: $260,000 · OtherGirls on the RunIndividual grant recipient: $200,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientThey Have a Right to Live: $171,000 · OtherThey Have a Right to LiveBURTON CAMP & CONFERENCE CENTER: $100,000 · OtherHFCC INC: $474,000 · OtherHFCC INCTexas Gun Sense: $150,000 · OtherTexas Gun Sense+16 more: $297,000 · Other+16 moreHouse of Neighborly Service of San Antonio Texas: $480,000 · Human ServicesHouse of Neighbor…FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES INC: $437,021 · Human ServicesFAMILY VIOLENCE P…Christian Assistance Ministry: $270,525 · Human ServicesChristian Assista…HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE: $200,000 · Human ServicesHOUSE OF NEIGHBOR…+1 more: $26,600 · Human ServicesSan Antonio Pets Alive Inc: $848,500 · AnimalsSan Antonio Pets…Spay-Neuter Assistance Program Inc: $456,000 · AnimalsSpay-Neuter Assi…DIZZY DOG ANIMAL RESCUE: $65,000 · Animals+1 more: $10,000 · AnimalsINTERFAITH WELCOME COALITION: $895,000 · ReligionINTERFAITH WE…TEXAS IMPACT EDUCATION FUND: $200,000 · ReligionTEXAS IMPACT …SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION: $1,063,000 · PhilanthropySAN ANTONIO A…UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS: $1,025,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY O…Girls on the Run of Bexar County: $745,000 · Youth DevelopmentGirls on …
Other$2,512,000Human Services$1,414,146Animals$1,379,500Religion$1,095,000Philanthropy$1,063,000Education$1,025,000Youth Development$745,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION: $1,063,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS: $1,025,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetINTERFAITH WELCOME COALITION: $895,000 over 7y, 37% of budgetSan Antonio Pets Alive Inc: $848,500 over 7y, 6.8% of budgetGirls on the Run of Bexar County: $745,000 over 7y, 41% of budgetHouse of Neighborly Service of San Antonio Texas: $480,000 over 6y, 16% of budgetHFCC INC: $474,000 over 4y, 5.8% of budgetSpay-Neuter Assistance Program Inc: $456,000 over 8y, 1.9% of budgetFAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES INC: $437,021 over 5y, 2.5% of budgetChristian Assistance Ministry: $270,525 over 8y, 5.3% of budgetHOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE: $200,000 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetTEXAS IMPACT EDUCATION FUND: $200,000 over 2y, 8.3% of budgetTexas Gun Sense: $150,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetDIZZY DOG ANIMAL RESCUE: $65,000 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetLANDA GARDENS CONSERVANCY: $35,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetSA CHRISTIAN HOPE RESOURCE CNTR INC DBA SA HOPE CENTER: $26,600 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetPuentes De Cristo INc: $10,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSOCIETY FOR ANIMAL RESCUE AND ADOPTION: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetMendocino Arts Center Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetSAN ANTONIO FERAL CAT COALITION: $8,000 over 1y, 3.2% 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 SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS ↗
  • Who funds INTERFAITH WELCOME COALITION ↗
  • Who funds San Antonio Pets Alive Inc ↗
  • Who funds Girls on the Run of Bexar County ↗
  • Who funds House of Neighborly Service of San Antonio Texas ↗
  • Who funds HFCC INC ↗
  • Who funds Spay-Neuter Assistance Program Inc ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds Christian Assistance Ministry ↗
  • Who funds HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS IMPACT EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds Texas Gun Sense ↗
  • Who funds DIZZY DOG ANIMAL RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds LANDA GARDENS CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds SA CHRISTIAN HOPE RESOURCE CNTR INC DBA SA HOPE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Puentes De Cristo INc ↗
  • Who funds PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL RESCUE AND ADOPTION ↗
  • Who funds Mendocino Arts Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds SAN ANTONIO FERAL CAT COALITION ↗

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.

San Antonio Area Foun…John R & Greli N Less…Genevieve & Ward Orsi…Faye L & William L Co…Harvey E Najim Charit…Methodist Healthcare …Keith M Orme and Pat …Marcia & Otto Koehler…Pryor Myra Stafford C…Nancy Smith Hurd Foun…United Way of San Ant…San Antonio Food Bank
San Antonio Area FoundationTX23.4× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: San Antonio Area Foundation · John R & Greli N Less Charitable Trust #FE324 · Genevieve & Ward Orsinger Foundation · Faye L & William L Cowden Charitable Foundation · Harvey E Najim Charitable Foundation · Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas Inc · Keith M Orme and Pat Vigeon Orme Charitable Foundation · Marcia & Otto Koehler Foundation · Pryor Myra Stafford Char Tr F0030100 · Nancy Smith Hurd Foundation · United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County · San Antonio Food Bank

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 DDM Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from DDM 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%25%50%75%100%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
    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 37 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 DDM’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