Skip to content
Gomez Near Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Gomez Near Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$450
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2025.

Animals$4kPublic Benefit$100Health$25
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$150
Median grant
4
States reached
$21k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Happy Doggo$450
The White Coat Waste Project Inc$250
PACC911 Phoenix Animal Care Coalition$150
Arizona Chihuahua Rescue Inc$150
Love Them All Sanctuary Rescue Two Chihuahuas$100
Abraham Foundation$100
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 (FY23–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 88% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Arizona Chihuahua Rescue Inc: $150 → 11%The Station Foundation: $25 → 10%Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation: $1k → 14%Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Research and Experimentation CAARE: $100 → 9%Abraham Foundation: $150 → 17%Abraham Foundation: $100 → 10%The White Coat Waste Project Inc: $1k → 14%Happy Doggo: $450 → 17%Friends of Hoja Nueva: $200 → 10%PACC911 Phoenix Animal Care Coalition: $150 → 11%The White Coat Waste Project Inc: $250 → 14%Love Them All Sanctuary Rescue Two Chihuahuas: $100 → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MT
NY
IA
CA
AZ
DC
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 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
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
2
Pom and the Hound Animal Refuge

Animal Welfare

—
3
The Animal Welfare Foundation
—
4
Anas Safe Haven Rescue Inc

Animal Welfare

Animals
5
Asian Dogs Rescue Allies

To rescue at risk k-9s from asia.

Animals
6
Animal Angels
—
7
Hope for China Dogs Rescue

At Hope for China Dogs, we are committed to combating the cruel and inhumane practice of the dog meat trade in China. We believe that every dog deserves to live a life free from pain and suffering, and we are dedicated to rescuing and…

Animals
8
Archangel Animal Network

Animal Advocacy

Animals
9
Alliance for Arizona Animal Protection

Prevention of animal cruelty and intervention on behalf of animals being abused.

Animals
10
Bacan dog rescue

Dog Rescue and adoptions

Animals
11
Forever Wild Wildlife Rescue
Animals
12
Animal Rescuers Without Borders

Battling against the overpopulation of homeless pets and improving the lives of companion animals through rescue, fostering programs, adoption, pet care, educational programs and of course spaying and neutering.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Abraham 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

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
5/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE WHITE COAT WASTE PROJECT INC: $1,250 · AnimalsTHE WHITE COAT WASTE PROJECT INCANIMAL HOPE AND WELLNESS FOUNDATION: $1,000 · AnimalsANIMAL HOPE AND WELLNESS FOUNDATIONHAPPY DOGGO: $450 · AnimalsHAPPY DOGGOPhoenix Animal Care Coalition PACC911: $150 · AnimalsARIZONA CHIHUAHUA RESCUE INC: $150 · Animals+2 more: $200 · Animals+2 moreFriends of Hoja Nueva: $200 · EnvironmentThe Abraham Foundation: $150 · PhilanthropyABRAHAM FOUNDATION: $100 · Public BenefitTHE STATION FOUNDATION: $25 · Health
Animals$3,200Environment$200Philanthropy$150Public Benefit$100Health$25

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE WHITE COAT WASTE PROJECT INC: $1,250 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHAPPY DOGGO: $450 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFriends of Hoja Nueva: $200 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Abraham Foundation: $150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPhoenix Animal Care Coalition PACC911: $150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetABRAHAM FOUNDATION: $100 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL RESEARCH ANDEXPERIMENTATION CAARE: $100 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE STATION FOUNDATION: $25 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.

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.

Paypal Charitable Giv…Morgan Stanley Global…The Bank of America C…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Paypal Charitable Giving FundDC11.3× affinity7 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Gomez Near Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gomez Near 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s 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 · 0–5%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Gomez Near Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Gomez Near Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 11 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 Gomez Near’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