Skip to content

· Private foundation

Kodimer-Lutz Foundation

Its FY2020 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$5k
Granted FY2019
10
Grants FY2019
4
States reached
$2k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Kodimer-Lutz Foundation’s FY2020 grant dollars went to Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2020 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year Kodimer-Lutz Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 6 organizations, $5k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

4
’18
6
’19
0
’20

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2020.

Philanthropy$108kHealth$3kFood & Nutrition$2kEducation$2kHuman Services$1kAnimals$600Recreation & Sports$600Youth Development$600
02FY2019 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$500
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UC Berkeley$1,500
The Food Basket Inc$500
JDRF$500
ALS Foundation$500
Alameda County Community Food Bank$500
Bananas$500
Hospice of Kona$500
Berkeley Crew$300
Berkeley Humane Society$300
Girls Inc$300
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 (FY18–19, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Caring Choices: $500 → 15%Hospice of Kona: $500 → 15%Bananas: $500 → 10%Bananas: $500 → 10%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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$6k · 7 repeat orgs$3k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
3

Total granted

$6k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+118%
+157%

Still filing today

57%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19
Human ServicesFood & NutritionHealthOther
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

  • ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK
    2× · 2018–2019 · $1k · revenue +118%
  • BI
    BANANAS INCORPORATED
    2× · 2018–2019 · $1k · revenue +220%
  • BT
    BREAKTHROUGH T1D
    2× · 2018–2019 · $1k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • UB
    UC Berkeley
    one grant, 2019 · $2k
  • TF
    THE FOOD BASKET INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $500 · revenue +157%
  • HO
    HOSPICE OF KONA INC
    one grant, 2019 · $500 · revenue +15%
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
San Francisco Food Bank

To end hunger in san francisco and marin counties by soliciting food donations nationally, distributing this food to qualifying public service agencies and neighborhood pantries, advocating for improved government food programs, and…

—
2
Berkeley Food Network

The berkeley food network (bfn) works to expand food assistance services to food-insecure berkeley residents. bfn was founded in 2016 to help establish a foundation of good health from which all berkeley residents can pursue opportunity by…

Food & Nutrition
3
Feeding Hawaii Together

To combat hunger on o'ahu by ensuring reliable access to nutritious, culturally appropriate food for all.

Human Services
4
Foodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc

To end hunger and transform the health of our community by providing nourishment to those in need by acquiring and distributing safe nutritious food via local agencies and by providing education to solve hunger and nutritional problems in…

Food & Nutrition
5
Idaho Foodbank Warehouse

To help feed, educate and advocate for Idaho's hungry through collaborative partnerships to develop efficient solutions that strengthen individuals, families, and communities.

Food & Nutrition
6
Extrafood

Food Rescue - The Organization rescues excess fresh food from Bay Area businesses, schools and non-profits and immediately delivers the food to safety net partners - such as senior housing centers, after-school programs, and homeless…

Food & Nutrition
7
Maui Food Bank Inc

The mission of the maui food bank is to help the hungry in maui county by collecting and distributing food through community partnerships.

Food & Nutrition
8
Food Forward Inc

Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.

Food & Nutrition
9
Hawaii Foodbank Inc

Hawaii foodbank, inc. is a nonprofit organization established to collect, warehouse and distribute salvageable food to social agencies that feed the needy of hawaii. the company is a certified member of feeding america, a nonprofit…

Food & Nutrition
10
The Global FoodBanking Network

To nourish the world's hungry through uniting and advancing food banks.

International
11
Berkeley Student Food Collective

The Berkeley Student Food Collective works to provide healthy, sustainable, and affordable food for the East Bay community. At our volunteer-run grocery collective, the Food Collective acts as a local hub for leadership development and…

Food & Nutrition
12
Project Open Hand

Project Open Hand's mission is to improve health outcomes and quality of life by providing nutritious meals to the sick and vulnerable, caring for and educating our community.

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bananas Incorporated; the most unlike its peers is Berkeley Crew. 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

8 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. 8 of the 12 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MORGAN STANLEY GLOBAL IMPACT FUNDING TRUST INC: $108,401 · PhilanthropyMORGAN STANLEY GLOBAL IMPACT FUNDING TRUST INCUC Berkeley: $1,500 · OtherALS Foundation: $1,000 · OtherALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $1,000 · OtherGirls Inc: $600 · OtherBerkeley Crew: $600 · OtherBerkeley Humane Society: $600 · OtherBANANAS INCORPORATED: $1,000 · Human ServicesCaring Choices Inc: $500 · Human ServicesHOSPICE OF KONA INC: $500 · Human ServicesBREAKTHROUGH T1D: $1,000 · HealthTHE FOOD BASKET INC: $500 · Food & Nutrition
Philanthropy$108,401Other$5,300Human Services$2,000Health$1,000Food & Nutrition$500

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 budgetMORGAN STANLEY GLOBAL IMPACT FUNDING TRUST INC: $108,401 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBANANAS INCORPORATED: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBREAKTHROUGH T1D: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBerkeley Crew: $600 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE FOOD BASKET INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCaring Choices Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHOSPICE OF KONA INC: $500 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Kodimer-Lutz Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Kodimer-Lutz 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 12 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Kodimer-Lutz’s filings →

    More from the funding graph