Skip to content
G Campbell O Durham M Gronlund Fdn at a glance

· Private foundation

G Campbell O Durham M Gronlund Fdn

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.

$79k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Human Services$391kHealth$217kCivil Rights$12k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $71k
$19,644
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN$19,644
THE SALVATION ARMY$19,644
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF UTAH$19,644
UTAH COMMUNITY ACTION$11,786
DIVISION FOR THE BLIND- STATE UTAH$7,858
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 67% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Shriners Hospitals for Children: $20k → 13%Salt Lake Community Action Program: $12k → 8%The Salvation Army: $20k → 12%SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $20k → 13%SALT LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM: $11k → 8%THE SALVATION ARMY: $20k → 12%SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $19k → 13%SALT LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM: $11k → 8%THE SALVATION ARMY: $19k → 12%SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $18k → 13%SALT LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM: $10k → 8%THE SALVATION ARMY: $18k → 12%SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $17k → 13%Salt Lake Community Action Program: $10k → 8%THE SALVATION ARMY: $17k → 12%Shriners Hospitals for Children: $17k → 13%Salt Lake Community Action Program: $10k → 8%The Salvation Army: $17k → 12%Shriners Hospitals for Children: $16k → 13%Salt Lake Community Action Program: $9k → 8%The Salvation Army: $16k → 12%Shriners Hospitals for Children: $15k → 13%SALT LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM: $7k → 8%The Salvation Army: $15k → 12%SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $12k → 13%Division for the Blind- State Utah: $8k → 8%THE SALVATION ARMY: $12k → 12%DIVISION FOR THE BLIND- STATE UTAH: $8k → 8%DIVISION FOR THE BLIND- STATE UTAH: $8k → 8%DIVISION FOR THE BLIND- STATE UTAH: $7k → 8%DIVISION FOR THE BLIND- STATE UTAH: $7k → 8%Division for the Blind- State Utah: $7k → 8%Division for the Blind- State Utah: $7k → 8%Division for the Blind- State Utah: $6k → 8%DIVISION FOR THE BLIND- STATE UTAH: $5k → 8%UTAH COMMUNITY ACTION: $12k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$607k · 5 repeat orgs$12k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
1

Total granted

$607k
$12k

Still filing today

40%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • TS
    The Salvation Army
    9× · 2017–2025 · $155k
  • CC
    CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF UTAH
    9× · 2017–2025 · $155k
  • SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN
    9× · 2017–2025 · $155k · revenue +120%

Funded once

  • UC
    UTAH COMMUNITY ACTION
    one grant, 2025 · $12k
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

2 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. 2 of the 6 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)
2/2
Grantees still filing
2/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

The Salvation Army: $154,812 · OtherThe Salvation ArmyCATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF UTAH: $154,812 · OtherCATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF UTAHSALT LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM: $81,102 · OtherSALT LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMDivision for the Blind- State Utah: $61,925 · OtherDivision for the Blind- State Utah+1 more: $11,786 · OtherSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $154,812 · HealthSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILD…
Other$464,437Health$154,812

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $154,812 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetSALT LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM: $81,102 over 8y, 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 SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds SALT LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization G Campbell O Durham M Gronlund Fdn funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from G Campbell O Durham M Gronlund Fdn. 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%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children: 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 · 0–90%
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 6 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 G Campbell O Durham M Gronlund Fdn’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