Skip to content
Dunlap Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Dunlap Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$163k
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Human Services$442kHealth$165kEducation$101kPhilanthropy$96kAnimals$74kYouth Development$11kArts & Culture$1kReligion$750Other$0
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $22k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $41k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIO$50,000
MARTHAS VILLAGE & KITCHEN$50,000
GALILEE CENTER$11,000
BIGHORN BAM$10,000
ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$10,000
CENTURY VILLAGES CABRILLO-BANNING$10,000
ANIMAL SAMARITANS SPCA$6,000
TRAVELING PAWS$5,000
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF DESSERT$5,000
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA FOUNDATION$5,000
LOVING ALL ANIMALS$1,000
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 (FY17–24, $432k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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%GALILEE CENTER: $17k → 11%GALILEE CENTER: $15k → 11%GALILEE CENTER: $11k → 11%GALILEE CENTER: $10k → 11%GALILEE CENTER: $10k → 11%GALILEE CENTER: $5k → 11%GALILEE CENTER: $5k → 11%MARTHAS VILLAGE & KITCHEN: $50k → 11%MARTHAS VILLAGE & KITCHEN: $50k → 11%MARTHAS VILLAGE & KITCHEN: $50k → 11%MARTHAS VILLAGE & KITCHEN: $50k → 11%MARTHAS VILLAGE & KITCHEN: $49k → 11%MARTHAS VILLAGE & KITCHEN: $40k → 11%MARTHAS VILLAGE & KITCHEN: $30k → 11%MARTHAS VILLAGE & KITCHEN: $30k → 11%COACHELLA VALLEY RESCUE MISSION: $10k → 11%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$780k · 12 repeat orgs$55k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +109% since the first grant, against +52% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
11

Total granted

$780k
$40k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+109%
+52%

Still filing today

67%
45%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesAnimalsEducationPhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentHealthOther
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

  • MV
    MARTHA'S VILLAGE AND KITCHEN INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $349k · revenue +226%
  • University of Arizona Foundation
    7× · 2017–2024 · $80k · revenue +109%
  • GC
    GALILEE CENTER INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $73k · revenue +730%

Funded once

  • EM
    Eisenhower Medical Centergraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +94%
  • CV
    COACHELLA VALLEY RESCUE MISSIONgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +52%
  • BA
    BRIGHTSIDE ANIMAL CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue +49%
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
The Animal Rescue Center of California

Help rescue, adopt, and provide medical care for abandoned animals in the coachella valley

Animals
2
Pet Orphans of Southern California

In addition to rescue and adoption, pet orphans provides a wide range of services including education, medical/financial, spay/neuter, and training assistance.

Animals
3
Humane Society of Southern Arizona

To compassionately serve pets and the people who love them.

Animals
4
Arizona Humane Society

We save the most vulnerable animals and enrich the lives of pets and people.

Animals
5
Santa Barbara Humane Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Santa barbara humane operates two campuses located in santa barbara and santa maria providing care for community-owned and homeless animals. both campuses offer affordable high quality veterinary care, compassionate behavior training…

Animals
6
Valley Humane SocietyInc

Valley Humane Society (VHS) creates a brighter future for cats and dogs by encouraging and strengthening the bond between people and pets. VHS rescues and rehabilitates companion animals, champions responsible caretaking, shares pets'…

Animals
7
Rancho Coastal Humane Society

See schedule orancho coastal is dedicated to the rescue and shelter of abandoned companion animals. it encourages adoptions into loving homes and provides educational and community outreach programs designed to enhance the human-animal…

Animals
8
Nevada Humane Society

To care for pets, find them homes and save lives.

Animals
9
Animal Care Sanctuary

Animal care sanctuary's lifesaving mission as a no kill organization envisions a community that promotes turning compassion into action for companion animals by: 1.) adopting healthy pet companions into loving homes. 2.) promoting the…

Animals
10
California Animal Rescue and Education Sanctuary Inc

C.A.R.E.S.MISSION STATEMENT*Rescue, foster and find good homes for abandoned and homeless domestic and farm animals.*Spay/neuter abandoned and homeless cats and dogs, as well as help low income families with same.*Conduct TNR+ programs to…

—
11
Cats of San Bernardino

The organization is a cat rescue. The organization provides the San Bernardino community stray cats with care such as vetrinarian intervention and adoption.

Animals
12
Palm Valley Animal Society Fka Palm Valley Animal Center

Humane treatment of animals

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Orange County Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Galilee Center 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

16 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. 16 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/16
Grantees still filing
13/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MARTHA'S VILLAGE AND KITCHEN INC: $349,400 · Human ServicesMARTHA'S VILLAGE AND KITCHEN INCGALILEE CENTER INC: $73,000 · Human ServicesGALILEE CENTER INC+1 more: $10,000 · Human ServicesEISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIO: $150,100 · OtherEISENHOWER MEDICAL CENT…PET RESCUE CENTER INC: $10,000 · OtherPET RESCUE CENTER INCCENTURY VILLAGES CABRILLO-BANNING: $10,000 · OtherCENTURY VILLAGES CABRIL…+8 more: $14,001 · Other+8 moreORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $60,000 · PhilanthropyORANGE COUNTY …BIGHORN GOLF CLUB CHARITIES INC: $35,501 · PhilanthropyBIGHORN GOLF C…LOVING ALL ANIMALS INC: $16,000 · PhilanthropyLOVING ALL ANI…University of Arizona Foundation: $80,000 · EducationUniversity o…College of the Desert Foundation: $19,999 · EducationCollege of t…Animal Samaritans: $35,001 · AnimalsBRIGHTSIDE ANIMAL CENTER: $5,000 · AnimalsTRAVELING PAWS INC: $5,000 · AnimalsBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF THE DES: $5,999 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentEisenhower Medical Center: $10,000 · HealthST JOSEPH'S PERUVIAN MISSION: $750 · International
Human Services$432,400Other$184,101Philanthropy$111,501Education$99,999Animals$45,001Youth Development$10,999Health$10,000International$750

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 budgetMARTHA'S VILLAGE AND KITCHEN INC: $349,400 over 8y, 1.3% of budgetUniversity of Arizona Foundation: $80,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetGALILEE CENTER INC: $73,000 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBIGHORN GOLF CLUB CHARITIES INC: $35,501 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetAnimal Samaritans: $35,001 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetCollege of the Desert Foundation: $19,999 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetLOVING ALL ANIMALS INC: $16,000 over 7y, 2.4% of budgetPET RESCUE CENTER INC: $10,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetEisenhower Medical Center: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOACHELLA VALLEY RESCUE MISSION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF THE DES: $5,999 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetBRIGHTSIDE ANIMAL CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTRAVELING PAWS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetST JOSEPH'S PERUVIAN MISSION: $750 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 MARTHA'S VILLAGE AND KITCHEN INC ↗
  • Who funds University of Arizona Foundation ↗
  • Who funds GALILEE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BIGHORN GOLF CLUB CHARITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds Animal Samaritans ↗
  • Who funds College of the Desert Foundation ↗
  • Who funds LOVING ALL ANIMALS INC ↗
  • Who funds PET RESCUE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Eisenhower Medical Center ↗
  • Who funds COACHELLA VALLEY RESCUE MISSION ↗
  • Who funds BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF THE DES ↗
  • Who funds BRIGHTSIDE ANIMAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds TRAVELING PAWS INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY ↗
  • Who funds ST JOSEPH'S PERUVIAN MISSION ↗

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.

Inland Empire Communi…The Champions Volunte…Desert Community Foun…Anderson Childrens Fo…Bighorn Golf Club Cha…Impact Through Golf F…Charity WorksThe Auen FoundationThe Coeta and Donald …HN and Frances C Berg…The Grace Helen Spear…Louis and Mary Silver…
Inland Empire Community FoundationCA19.5× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Inland Empire Community Foundation · The Champions Volunteer Foundation · Desert Community Foundation · Anderson Childrens Foundation · Bighorn Golf Club Charities Inc · Impact Through Golf Foundation · Charity Works · The Auen Foundation · The Coeta and Donald Barker Foundation · HN and Frances C Berger Foundation · The Grace Helen Spearman Foundation · Louis and Mary Silver 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 Dunlap Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Dunlap Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Dunlap’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