Skip to content
Gallop Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Gallop Family 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.

$255k
Granted FY2024still arriving
28
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$18k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% 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$373kReligion$297kFood & Nutrition$206kEducation$170kRecreation & Sports$97kHousing & Shelter$94kHealth$82kCrime & Legal$78kOther$0
02FY2024 · 28 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k12 grants · $82k
  • $10k–50k16 grants · $173k
$10,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK$18,000
EKISA MINISTRIES$15,000
BLUE SKY BRIDGE$10,000
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR OCEAN COUN$10,000
PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN$10,000
ANY BABY CAN$10,000
GRACE SMITH HOUSE$10,000
DUPAGE PADS$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL COLORADO FOUNDAT$10,000
HOPE AUSTIN$10,000
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI$10,000
JEREMIAH PROGRAM$10,000
CASA OF TRAVIS COUNTY$10,000
THE SAFE ALLIANCE AUSTIN$10,000
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, $207k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 64% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%GRACE SMITH HOUSE: $10k → 9%A PRECIOUS CHILD: $7k → 5%FAMILY TREE: $7k → 7%THE WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF COLORADO: $2k → 12%A PRECIOUS CHILD: $4k → 5%FAMILY TREE: $3k → 7%A PRECIOUS CHILD: $3k → 5%THE VOICES AND FACES PROJECT: $3k → 14%FOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $13k → 10%EFAA: $8k → 12%FOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $8k → 10%EFAA: $5k → 12%FOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $5k → 10%EMERGENCY FAMILY ASSISTANCE ASSOCIA: $5k → 12%FOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $5k → 10%EFAA: $4k → 12%FOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $3k → 10%EFAA: $3k → 12%FOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $3k → 10%HILL COUNTRY COMMUNITY MINISTRIES: $10k → 10%HILL COUNTRY COMMUNITY MINISTRIES: $10k → 10%PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $15k → 10%PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $11k → 10%PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $10k → 10%PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $10k → 10%FAMILY SHELTER SERVICES: $10k → 7%FAMILY SHELTER SERVICES: $8k → 7%FAMILY SHELTER SERVICES: $7k → 7%FAMILY SHELTER SERVICES: $5k → 7%FAMILY SHELTER SERVICES: $5k → 7%FAMILY SHELTER SERVICES: $5k → 7%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
CA
UT
CO
MO
TN
TX
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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 45 repeat orgs$151k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +43% since the first grant, against +42% for those funded once.

45 repeat relationships: 25 still active in FY2024, 20 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

45
22

Total granted

$1.5M
$121k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+42%

Still filing today

44%
36%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k 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 ServicesHealthFood & NutritionEducationHousing & ShelterReligionOther
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

  • NI
    NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK
    8× · 2017–2024 · $139k · revenue +43%
  • CA
    COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF TRAVIS COUNTY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $63k · revenue +35%
  • ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $55k · revenue +145%

Funded once

  • RU
    ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2019 · $20k
  • AJ
    AUSTIN JEREMIAH PROGRAM
    one grant, 2020 · $16k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
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 Center for Women and Families Inc

To help victims of intimate partner abuse or sexual violence become survivors through supportive services, community education and cooperative partnerships that foster hope, promote self-sufficiency and rebuild lives.

Human Services
2
Domestic Violence Intervention Services

See schedule oadvancing physical and emotional safety by reducing the impact and occurrence of sexual and domestic violence, human trafficking and stalking through inclusive intervention and prevention services for children, youth, and…

Human Services
3
Choices for Victims of Domestic Violence

To create a better world by serving people in need by operating food pantries, homeless shelters, a domestic violence shelter, affordable housing communities, senior living, assisted living and skilled care facilities, a home health care…

Human Services
4
The Center for Women and Children in Crisis

Provide a caring, advocating, safe, and educationally based environment for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Health
5
Safehouse Denver Inc

Safehouse denver assists adult, children, and youth in reclaiming their right to a life free from domestic violence. the agency provides a broad spectrum of culturally competent, trauma-informed services, including but not limited to,…

Human Services
6
Safehome Inc

To break the cycle of domestic violence and partner abuse for victims and their children by providing shelter, advocacy, counseling and prevention education in our community.

Human Services
7
Hope Crisis Center

Hope crisis center provides crisis line services and shelter to domestic violence and sexual assault victims

Health
8
Colorado Coalition for the Homeless

The mission of the colorado coalition for the homeless is to work collaboratively toward the prevention of homelessness and the creation of lasting solutions for families, children, and individuals who are experiencing or at-risk of…

Human Services
9
Denver Children's Advocacy Center

Dcac works to improve the lives of children traumatized by sexual abuse, neglect and violence-as well as those who are at high-risk with prevention, education, and direct services. our mission is to prevent abuse strengthen families…

Employment
10
Crisis Intervention & Advocacy Center

Crisis intervention & advocacy center is an advocacy program designed to respond to victims of domestic abuse, sexual assualt, stalking, dating violence, and homelessness in adair, adams, clarke, dallas, decatur, guthrie, madison,…

Human Services
11
Women's and Children's Crisis Shelter

Women's and children's crisis shelter is committed to providing safety, shelter and hope to victims of domestic violence.

Human Services
12
Chances & Changes Inc

To operate residential and non-residential programs for victims of domestic violence.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Project Self-Sufficiency of Northern Colorado; the most unlike its peers is Mother House Dba Haven Ridge. 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

32 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. 32 of the 72 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
31/32
Grantees still filing
24/32
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EKISA MINISTRIES: $121,000 · OtherEKISA MINISTRIESJEREMIAH PROGRAM: $90,500 · OtherJEREMIAH PROGRAMTHERE WITH CARE: $85,000 · OtherTHERE WITH CAREBLUE SKY BRIDGE: $80,000 · OtherBLUE SKY BRIDGECOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF TRAVIS COUNTY: $62,500 · OtherCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF TRAVIS COUNTYANY BABY CAN: $59,000 · OtherANY BABY CANUNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL MISSOURI: $45,000 · OtherNaomis House: $38,000 · Other+40 more: $458,000 · Other+40 morePARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $46,000 · Human ServicesPARTNERSHIPS F…Family Shelter Service Inc: $40,000 · Human ServicesFamily Shelter…FOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS FOUNDATION: $37,000 · Human ServicesFOSTER ANGELS …EMERGENCY FAMILY ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION: $25,000 · Human ServicesEMERGENCY FAMI…HILL COUNTRY COMMUNITY MINISTRIES: $20,000 · Human ServicesHILL COUNTRY C…A PRECIOUS CHILD INC: $14,000 · Human ServicesA PRECIOUS CHI…FAMILY TREE INC: $10,000 · Human ServicesGRACE SMITH HOUSE INC: $10,000 · Human Services+2 more: $5,000 · Human ServicesNORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK: $139,000 · Food & NutritionNORTHERN IL…HOPEAUSTIN: $25,000 · Food & NutritionHOPEAUSTINCOMMUNITY FOOD SHARE INC: $12,000 · Food & NutritionCOMMUNITY F…COLUMBIA COLLEGE: $55,000 · EducationMaryville University - St Louis: $15,000 · EducationSTEPHENS COLLEGE: $5,000 · EducationST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $55,000 · HealthRise Against Suicide: $4,000 · Health+3 more: $5,000 · HealthSARAH'S CIRCLE: $36,000 · Housing & ShelterDUPAGE PADS INC: $20,000 · Housing & ShelterRENEW PROJECT: $54,000 · Employment
Other$1,039,000Human Services$207,000Food & Nutrition$176,000Education$75,000Health$64,000Housing & Shelter$56,000Employment$54,000

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 budgetNORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK: $139,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF TRAVIS COUNTY: $62,500 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $55,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetCOLUMBIA COLLEGE: $55,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetRENEW PROJECT: $54,000 over 8y, 4.9% of budgetPARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $46,000 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetFamily Shelter Service Inc: $40,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetNaomis House: $38,000 over 4y, 2.0% of budgetFOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS FOUNDATION: $37,000 over 6y, 1.8% of budgetSARAH'S CIRCLE: $36,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetEMERGENCY FAMILY ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION: $25,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetHOPEAUSTIN: $25,000 over 6y, 2.5% of budgetDUPAGE PADS INC: $20,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMaryville University - St Louis: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetJAIL TO JOBS: $15,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetA PRECIOUS CHILD INC: $14,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY OF NORTHERN COLORADO: $13,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOOD SHARE INC: $12,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY TREE INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGRACE SMITH HOUSE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSTEPHENS COLLEGE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HOPE ALLIANCE: $5,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetBENEDICT CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRise Against Suicide: $4,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetMOTHER HOUSE DBA HAVEN RIDGE: $3,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE VOICES & FACES PROJECT: $3,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF COLORADO INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCRISIS CENTER: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMAYO CLINIC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAdaptive Adventures: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOLORADO CHILDREN'S CAMPAIGN: $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 NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF TRAVIS COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
  • Who funds COLUMBIA COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds RENEW PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds Family Shelter Service Inc ↗
  • Who funds Naomis House ↗
  • Who funds FOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SARAH'S CIRCLE ↗
  • Who funds EMERGENCY FAMILY ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds HOPEAUSTIN ↗
  • Who funds DUPAGE PADS INC ↗
  • Who funds HILL COUNTRY COMMUNITY MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds Maryville University - St Louis ↗
  • Who funds JAIL TO JOBS ↗
  • Who funds A PRECIOUS CHILD INC ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY OF NORTHERN COLORADO ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY FOOD SHARE 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.

Colorado Gives Founda…The Denver FoundationRedman Foundation IncA Glimmer of Hope Fou…St David's FoundationAustin Community Foun…The Blackbaud Giving …Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Renaissance Charitabl…American Endowment Fo…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…
Colorado Gives FoundationCO15.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Colorado Gives Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Redman Foundation Inc · A Glimmer of Hope Foundation Austin · St David's Foundation · Austin Community Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase 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 Gallop Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gallop Family Foundation. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    17report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 72 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 Gallop 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