Skip to content
Diemer Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Diemer Family 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.

$15k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0179% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$69kReligion$8kHuman Services$5kHealth$3kFood & Nutrition$1kAnimals$700Community Improvement$600Public Safety & Disaster$300Other$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$250
Median grant
2
States reached
$333k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NORTHERN OKLAHOMA COLLEGE FOUNDATION$8,213
NORTHERN OKLAHOMA COLLEGE FOUNDATION-PRESIDENTIAL$5,000
TONKAWA HISTORICAL SOCIETY$250
KAY COUNTY CHILD WELFARE ADVISORY BOARD$250
HOSPICE OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA$250
MARLAND CHILDREN'S HOME$250
OPPORTUNITY CENTER INC$250
TONKAWA ALUMNI ASSOCATION$100
NATIONAL FIRE SAFETY COUNCIL INC$100
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, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 53% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 16%MARLAND CHILDREN'S HOME: $250 → 14%MARLAND CHILDREN'S HOME: $250 → 14%MARLAND CHILDREN'S HOME: $250 → 14%MARLAND CHILDREN'S HOME: $250 → 14%Marland Children's Home: $250 → 14%MARLAND CHILDREN'S HOME: $250 → 14%MARLAND CHILDREN'S HOME: $250 → 14%OPPORTUNITY CENTER INC: $250 → 16%OPPORTUNITY CENTER INC: $250 → 16%Opportunity Center Inc: $250 → 16%OPPORTUNITY CENTER: $250 → 16%OPPORTUNITY CENTER INC: $250 → 16%OPPORTUNITY CENTER INC: $250 → 16%OPPORTUNITY CENTER INC: $250 → 16%OPPORTUNITY CENTER INC: $250 → 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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$111k · 12 repeat orgs$9k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +18% since the first grant, against -9% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
9

Total granted

$111k
$4k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+18%
-9%

Still filing today

42%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesPublic Safety & DisasterEducationHealthOther
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

  • NO
    Northern Oklahoma College Foundation Inc
    8× · 2017–2025 · $76k · revenue +12%
  • OC
    OPPORTUNITY CENTER INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $2k · revenue +21%
  • ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $2k · revenue +59%

Funded once

  • TM
    TONKAWA MID HIGH FOOD PANTRY
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
  • TL
    TONKAWA LIVESTOCK BOOSTERS CLUB
    one grant, 2024 · $700
  • TC
    TONKAWA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    one grant, 2024 · $600
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 26 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)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Northern Oklahoma College Foundation Inc: $75,913 · EducationNorthern Oklahoma College Foundation IncIndividual grant recipient: $9,810 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTONKAWA FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHUR: $7,850 · OtherTONKAWA FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURIndividual grant recipient: $5,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNORTHERN OKLAHOMA COLLEGE FOUNDATION-PRESIDENTIAL: $5,000 · OtherNORTHERN OKLAHOMA COLLEGE FOUNDATION…Individual grant recipient: $2,717 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+15 more: $7,584 · Other+15 moreOPPORTUNITY CENTER INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesMARLAND CHILDRENS HOME INC: $1,750 · Human ServicesST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $1,640 · HealthNATIONAL CHILD SAFETY COUNCIL: $300 · Public Safety & DisasterNATIONAL FIRE SAFETY COUNCIL INC: $100 · Public Safety & Disaster
Education$75,913Other$38,461Human Services$3,750Health$1,640Public Safety & Disaster$400

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 budgetNorthern Oklahoma College Foundation Inc: $75,913 over 8y, 1.1% of budgetOPPORTUNITY CENTER INC: $2,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetMARLAND CHILDRENS HOME INC: $1,750 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $1,640 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHOSPICE OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: $1,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL CHILD SAFETY COUNCIL: $300 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 Northern Oklahoma College Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds OPPORTUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds MARLAND CHILDRENS HOME INC ↗
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
  • Who funds HOSPICE OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL CHILD SAFETY COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL FIRE SAFETY COUNCIL 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.

American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE7.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Diemer Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Diemer Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%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
    2get 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 · 0–10%
    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.

    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 26 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 Diemer Family’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