Skip to content

· Public charity

Dermatology Pa Foundation Dpaf

To inspire and invest in dermpas to succeed in professional development and philanthropic service to impact communities and provide inclusion for all.

$13k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$13k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$54kHealth$40kScience & Tech$25kInternational$20kYouth Development$8k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$12,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$258k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY$12,500
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 28% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NATIONAL ALOPECIA AND AREATA FOUNDATION: $9k → 8%CHILDREN'S SKIN DISEASE FOUNDATION: $16k → 9%HIDRADENITIS SUPPURATIVA FOUNDATION: $8k → 14%AMERICARES: $20k → 9%UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY: $17k → 8%UCB INC: $25k → 8%CORPORATION OF MERCER UNIVERSITY: $25k → 23%WIGS FOR KIDS: $8k → 17%CHILDREN'S SKIN DISEASE FOUNDATION: $6k → 9%UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY: $13k → 8%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 field
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 8 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY: $29,500 · OtherUTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITYUCB INC: $25,000 · OtherUCB INCHidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation Inc: $7,960 · OtherHidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation IncChildrens Skin Disease Foundation: $22,194 · HealthChildrens Skin Disease Foundat…National Alopecia Areata Foundation: $9,495 · HealthNational Alopecia Areata Found…Wigs For Kids Inc: $8,300 · HealthWigs For Kids IncTHE CORPORATION OF MERCER UNIVERSITY: $24,577 · EducationTHE CORPORATION OF…AMERICARES FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 · InternationalAMERICARES FOUN…
Other$62,460Health$39,989Education$24,577International$20,000

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 budgetTHE CORPORATION OF MERCER UNIVERSITY: $24,577 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetChildrens Skin Disease Foundation: $22,194 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetAMERICARES FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWigs For Kids Inc: $8,300 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetHidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation Inc: $7,960 over 1y, 4.1% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Dermatology Pa Foundation Dpaf funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Dermatology Pa Foundation Dpaf. 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Americares Foundation Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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 8 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 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 Dermatology Pa Foundation Dpaf’s filings →

More from the funding graph