Skip to content

· Private foundation

Dwyer Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$81k
Granted FY2025still arriving
26
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$5k
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 2025.

Education$346kHuman Services$150kReligion$118kHousing & Shelter$48kHealth$46kFood & Nutrition$31kYouth Development$12kArts & Culture$2k
02FY2025 · 26 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$970k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PORTLAND RESCUE MISSION$5,000
SEATTLE NATIVITY SCHOOL$5,000
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - LEBANON AREA$4,000
ST ANDREW NATIVITY SCHOOL$4,000
ROSE HAVEN$4,000
DE LA SALLE NORTH CATHOLIC HS$4,000
RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES$4,000
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$4,000
SISTERS OF ST MARY OF OREGON FOUNDA$4,000
MEALS ON WHEELS PEOPLE$4,000
HOLY FAMILY SCHOOL$4,000
STORE TO DOOR$3,000
HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC CHURCH SCHOOL$3,000
Individual grant recipient$3,000
SISTERS OF THE HOLY CHILD CARE CENT$3,000
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, $53k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 95% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SAVING GRACE MATERNITY HOME: $3k → 8%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $3k → 12%RAPHAEL HOUSE: $3k → 12%RAPHAEL HOUSE: $3k → 12%RAPHAEL HOUSE: $3k → 12%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $3k → 12%RAPHAEL HOUSE: $3k → 12%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $2k → 12%PROJECT 48: $2k → 12%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $2k → 12%STORE TO DOOR: $3k → 12%STORE TO DOOR: $3k → 12%STORE TO DOOR: $2k → 12%STORE TO DOOR: $2k → 12%STORE TO DOOR: $2k → 12%STORE TO DOOR: $2k → 12%STORE TO DOOR: $1k → 12%STORE TO DOOR: $1k → 12%STORE TO DOOR: $1k → 12%COMMUNITY FOR POSITIVE AGING: $3k → 12%HOLLYWOOD SENIOR CENTER: $3k → 12%COMMUNITY FOR POSITIVE AGING: $3k → 12%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $3k → 12%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.
$691k · 38 repeat orgs$61k to everyone else

38 repeat relationships: 24 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

38
18

Total granted

$691k
$59k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+53%
+1363%

Still filing today

32%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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 ServicesEducationHealthHousing & ShelterFood & NutritionOther
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

  • SN
    SEATTLE NATIVITY SCHOOL
    7× · 2017–2025 · $115k · revenue +150%
  • ROSE HAVEN CIC
    6× · 2018–2025 · $20k · revenue +303%
  • PM
    PROVIDENCE MILWAUKIE FOUNDATION
    5× · 2020–2024 · $15k · revenue +141%

Funded once

  • JV
    JESUIT VOLUNTEER CORP
    one grant, 2019 · $10k
  • SH
    SOCIETY HOLY CHILD JESUS
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
  • SC
    ST CLARE CHURCH & SCHOOL
    one grant, 2019 · $5k
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
Meals On Wheels of Central Marylandinc

Meals on wheels of central maryland's charitable mission, to keep homebound people living safely and independently at home through the provision of nutritious meals, personal contact and support services, reduces hospitalization, and…

Food & Nutrition
2
Meals On Wheels of San Francisco Inc

To provide isolated homebound seniors in san francisco with nutritious meals, daily human contact, and supportive services to prevent their premature institutionalization.

—
3
LArche Portland

At l'arche portland people with and without developmental disabilities create home and build community together. we nurture long-term mutual relationships that reveal the gifts of people with developmental disabilities. in doing so we…

Human Services
4
Portland Street Medicine

We offer our homeless neighbors accessible whole-person care to improve and support health, and to bridge a gap in trust between people and systems.

Health
5
Provail

Provail's mission is to support people with disabilities to fulfill their life choices.

Health
6
Providence Portland Medical Foundation

As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.

Health
7
William Temple House

William temple house provides food, counseling, clothing and household items to portland-area neighbors to strengthen our community.

—
8
Providence House

Providence house was established to provide housing, supportive services, training, employment and opportunities for homeless families with children to break the cycle of homelessness.

Community Improvement
9
Micah House Corporation

Providing shelter, food, clothing & support for homeless families

Housing & Shelter
10
The Wallace Medical Concern

We partner with our community to make good health possible for all. wallace serves individuals and families who face barriers to care throughout the east multnomah county in the portland metropolitan area.

—
11
Cathedral Center Inc

Cathedral center's mission is to provide a safe environment for women and families, while working to end homelessness one life at a time. the cathedral center serves unaccompanied women and families with children who are homeless or…

Religion
12
Mary's Mantle

Mary's mantle is a catholic residential program for homeless expectant women. we witness the love of christ by promoting the dignity of life. we provide a safe, faith-based and caring environment that supports the transition into…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Metropolitan Family Service; the most unlike its peers is Wheel to Walk Foundation. 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

15 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. 15 of the 57 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)
15/15
Grantees still filing
10/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VALLEY CATHOLIC SCHOOL: $47,000 · OtherVALLEY CATHOLIC SCHOOLST VINCENT DE PAUL: $45,700 · OtherST VINCENT DE PAULST JOSEPH THE WORKER: $40,000 · OtherST JOSEPH THE WORKERST ANDREW NATIVITY SCHOOL: $35,000 · OtherST ANDREW NATIVITY SCHOOLST MARYS ACADEMY: $23,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $20,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $19,500 · OtherDE LA SALLE NORTH CATHOLIC: $17,000 · Other+36 more: $224,000 · Other+36 moreSEATTLE NATIVITY SCHOOL: $115,000 · EducationSEATTLE NATIVITY SCHOOLPROVIDENCE CENTER: $62,000 · EducationPROVIDENCE CENTER+1 more: $2,000 · EducationSTORE TO DOOR: $16,500 · Human ServicesMetropolitan Family Service: $12,000 · Human ServicesRAPHAEL HOUSE OF PORTLAND: $11,000 · Human ServicesHollywood Senior Center dba Community for Positive Aging: $8,500 · Human ServicesSAVING GRACE MATERNITY HOME: $2,500 · Human ServicesPROJECT 48 INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesROSE HAVEN CIC: $19,500 · Housing & ShelterPROVIDENCE MILWAUKIE FOUNDATION: $14,500 · HealthWHEEL TO WALK FOUNDATION: $2,000 · HealthMEALS ON WHEELS PEOPLE INC: $13,500 · Food & Nutrition
Other$471,200Education$179,000Human Services$52,500Housing & Shelter$19,500Health$16,500Food & Nutrition$13,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSEATTLE NATIVITY SCHOOL: $115,000 over 7y, 3.0% of budgetPROVIDENCE CENTER: $62,000 over 5y, 3.3% of budgetROSE HAVEN CIC: $19,500 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSTORE TO DOOR: $16,500 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetPROVIDENCE MILWAUKIE FOUNDATION: $14,500 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS PEOPLE INC: $13,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetMetropolitan Family Service: $12,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetRAPHAEL HOUSE OF PORTLAND: $11,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetBLANCHET HOUSE OF HOSPITALITY: $11,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHollywood Senior Center dba Community for Positive Aging: $8,500 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetMACDONALD CENTER: $5,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSAVING GRACE MATERNITY HOME: $2,500 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetHOLY FAMILY ACADEMY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWHEEL TO WALK FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetPROJECT 48 INC: $2,000 over 1y, 4.6% 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 SEATTLE NATIVITY SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds PROVIDENCE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds ROSE HAVEN CIC ↗
  • Who funds STORE TO DOOR ↗
  • Who funds PROVIDENCE MILWAUKIE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS PEOPLE INC ↗
  • Who funds Metropolitan Family Service ↗
  • Who funds RAPHAEL HOUSE OF PORTLAND ↗
  • Who funds BLANCHET HOUSE OF HOSPITALITY ↗
  • Who funds Hollywood Senior Center dba Community for Positive Aging ↗
  • Who funds MACDONALD CENTER ↗

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.

Juan Young TrustOR25.9× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Juan Young Trust · The Oregon Community Foundation · Clark Foundation · OCF Joseph E Weston Public Foundation · The Autzen Foundation · Marie Lamfrom Charitable Foundation Trust · The Robert D and Marcia H Randall Charitable Trust · Maybelle Clark Macdonald Fund · Bp Lester & Regina John Foundation · Rose E Tucker Charitable Trust · Onpoint Community Credit Union · Hoover Family 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 Dwyer Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Dwyer Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 23%
  • Metropolitan Family Service: 29% of income from government
  • Project 48 Inc: 23% of income from government
  • Raphael House of Portland: 10% of income from government
  • Hollywood Senior Center dba Community for Positive Aging: 9% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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 57 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 Dwyer’s filings →

More from the funding graph