Skip to content

· Private foundation

Dlm Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$336k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$170k
Largest
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Youth Development$725kReligion$555kEducation$234kPhilanthropy$200kEnvironment$75kCivil Rights$25kHealth$15kCrime & Legal$15kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $116k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $220k
$36,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRIENDS OF THE ELMIRA CIVIL WAR PRISON$170,000
SOUTH HILLS INTERFAITH MOVEMENT$50,000
ST PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH$36,000
SISTERS OF ST JOSEPH$30,000
PENNSYLVANIA ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN$25,000
CROSSROADS FOUNDATION$25,000
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 (FY22–22, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%RIP MEDICAL DEBT: $15k → 13%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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.8M · 8 repeat orgs$286k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +368% since the first grant, against +46% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
5

Total granted

$1.8M
$91k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+368%
+46%

Still filing today

50%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $195k 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
EducationReligionFood & NutritionHuman ServicesAnimalsArts & 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

  • TC
    THE CROSSROADS FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2025 · $750k · revenue +117%
  • SH
    SOUTH HILLS INTERFAITH MINISTRIES
    5× · 2020–2025 · $360k · revenue +12%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE ELMIRA CIVIL WAR PRISON C CAMP
    5× · 2017–2024 · $234k · revenue +781%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
  • MEDICAL DEBT RESOLUTION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue +46%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF ELMIRA PRISON CAMP
    one grant, 2023 · $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
Scenic Pittsburgh

To protect, preserve, and promote the scenic resources of southwestern pennsylvania.

Environment
2
Central Pennsylvania Food Bank

Our mission is to solve hunger in central pennsylvania by ensuring that everyone struggling with hunger has access to enough wholesome food every day. we will achieve this bold goal with the help of our generous donors, volunteers and…

Food & Nutrition
3
Pittsburgh Mercy Health System Inc

We, pittsburgh mercy health system (pittsburgh mercy) and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities. pittsburgh mercy is a member of trinity…

Health
4
Rebuilding Together Pittsburgh

Working in partnership with low-income elderly homeowners, veterans, and individuals with disabilities, their families, volunteers and community residents, we work to preserve and revitalize houses thus providing a community impact.…

Housing & Shelter
5
Zoological Society of Pittsburgh

The zoological society of pittsburgh is dedicated to being a leader in, and significant contributor to, the conservation of endangered and threatened species. the society provides an enjoyable family experience that fosters understanding,…

Animals
6
The Friends of the Pittsburgh Institutions
—
7
The Pittsburgh Promise Foundation

The pittsburgh promise promotes high educational aspirations among urban youth, funds scholarships for post-secondary access, and fuels a prepared and diverse regional workforce.

Philanthropy
8
Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy

We improve quality of life by enhancing and stewarding pittsburgh's parks in partnership with the community.

Recreation & Sports
9
Carnegie Institute

To preserve and expand the resources of art and science as agents of personal growth and social advancement in pittsburgh and beyond.

Arts & Culture
10
Greater Pittsburgh Arts Council

By sharing resources and fostering meaningful relationships that strengthen the region's creative community, the greater pittsburgh arts council builds a more resourced, connected, and informed arts sector, empowering artists and arts…

Arts & Culture
11
Pittsburgh Cares

The organization's purpose is to create flexible, rewarding, and meaningful volunteer opportunities in the pittsburgh region. pittsburgh cares partners with community based organizations to create the volunteer opportunities and recruits…

Community Improvement
12
Pittsburgh Food Policy Council

The mission of the pittsburgh food policy council is to build a food system that benefits our communities, economy, and environment in ways that are just, equitable and sustainable. driven by community-led solutions, we bring together over…

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Pittsburgh Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Orcat 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

8 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. 8 of the 16 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
8/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE CROSSROADS FOUNDATION: $750,000 · OtherTHE CROSSROADS FOUNDATIONSISTERS OF ST JOSEPH: $260,000 · OtherSISTERS OF ST JOSEPHFRIENDS OF THE ELMIRA CIVIL WAR PRISON: $170,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF THE ELMIRA CIVIL WAR PRISONPOWER: $125,000 · OtherPOWERST PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH: $50,928 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · Other+3 more: $65,000 · OtherSOUTH HILLS INTERFAITH MINISTRIES: $360,000 · ReligionSOUTH HILLS INTER…FRIENDS OF THE ELMIRA CIVIL WAR PRISON C CAMP: $234,149 · EducationFRIENDS OF …THE PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION: $200,000 · PhilanthropyTHE PITTS…MEDICAL DEBT RESOLUTION INC: $15,000 · Human ServicesRIVERS OF STEEL HERITAGE CORPORATION: $10,000 · Arts & CultureGREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $10,000 · Food & NutritionORCAT INC: $1,000 · Animals
Other$1,470,928Religion$360,000Education$234,149Philanthropy$200,000Human Services$15,000Arts & Culture$10,000Food & Nutrition$10,000Animals$1,000

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 CROSSROADS FOUNDATION: $750,000 over 8y, 11% of budgetSOUTH HILLS INTERFAITH MINISTRIES: $360,000 over 5y, 6.4% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE ELMIRA CIVIL WAR PRISON C CAMP: $234,149 over 5y, 8.2% of budgetTHE PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION: $200,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMEDICAL DEBT RESOLUTION INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRIVERS OF STEEL HERITAGE CORPORATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetGREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetORCAT INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • Who funds THE CROSSROADS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH HILLS INTERFAITH MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ELMIRA CIVIL WAR PRISON C CAMP ↗
  • Who funds THE PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MEDICAL DEBT RESOLUTION INC ↗
  • Who funds RIVERS OF STEEL HERITAGE CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds GREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds ORCAT 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.2× affinity5 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 Dlm Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Dlm Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–75%
    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 16 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 Dlm’s filings →

    More from the funding graph