Skip to content
Mabry Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Mabry Foundation

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.

$448k
Granted FY2025still arriving
18
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through 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, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$267kHousing & Shelter$239kHuman Services$235kRecreation & Sports$189kEducation$133kHealth$64kInternational$62kYouth Development$45kOther$0
02FY2025 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k14 grants · $368k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
$22,127
Median grant
5
States reached
$8.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YOUTH 71FIVE MINISTRIES$59,591
SARAH'S HOUSE$49,394
SPIRIT OF SANTA PAULA$46,545
QUENCHED$40,000
MITCHELL SWABACK CHARITIES$37,700
HARVEST HOME$36,540
WILDERNESS TRAILS$26,500
OHANA HEALTH$22,356
HEARTLINE MINISTRIES$22,127
JAMES STORE HOUSE$19,997
FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES$16,690
AGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT$15,000
TINY TREASURES$14,025
PHOENIX INNER CITY KIDS$10,995
URBAN PROMISE$10,544
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 (FY18–25, $640k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 60% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT: $15k → 14%HARVEST HOME: $40k → 14%WILDERNESS TRAILS: $64k → 13%HEARTLINE MINISTRIES: $22k → 11%HOPE WOMENS CENTER: $9k → 11%AGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT: $15k → 14%HARVEST HOME: $37k → 14%WILDERNESS TRAILS: $61k → 13%HOPE WOMENS CENTER: $9k → 11%AGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT: $10k → 14%HARVEST HOME: $19k → 14%AGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT: $9k → 14%WILDERNESS TRAILS: $27k → 13%AGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT: $7k → 14%QUENCHED: $40k → 11%WILDERNESS TRAILS: $15k → 13%QUENCHED: $25k → 11%THE PREGNANCY CENTER: $9k → 13%WILDERNESS TRAILS: $9k → 13%WILDERNESS TRAILS: $8k → 13%FOREVER FOUND: $10k → 10%WILDERNESS TRAILS: $8k → 13%FOREVER FOUND: $5k → 10%THE PREGNANCY CENTER: $6k → 13%THE PREGNANCY CENTER: $5k → 13%THE PREGNANCY CENTER: $2k → 13%SOUTHERN OREGON AXE OF KINDNESS: $16k → 13%SOUTHERN OREGON AXE OF KINDNESS: $3k → 13%VENTURA COUNTY RESCUE MISSION: $65k → 10%VENTURA COUNTY RESCUE MISSION: $42k → 10%VENTURA COUNTY RESCUE MISSION: $20k → 10%VENTURA COUNTY RESCUE MISSION: $9k → 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 49% of Mabry Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 52% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 29%.

Mabry Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 23 repeat orgs$267k to everyone else

23 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
11

Total granted

$1.4M
$186k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+70%

Still filing today

74%
18%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $81k 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 ServicesPhilanthropyHealthReligionYouth DevelopmentEducationOther
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

  • WT
    WILDERNESS TRAILS INC
    7× · 2018–2025 · $190k · revenue +56%
  • AS
    ALONG SIDE MINISTRIES INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $177k · revenue +49%
  • RM
    RESCUE MISSION ALLIANCE
    4× · 2019–2024 · $136k · revenue +8%

Funded once

  • TC
    THE CLEAR WATER PROJECT INC
    one grant, 2024 · $33k · revenue +70%
  • CC
    CITY CENTER VENTURA
    one grant, 2024 · $32k
  • OC
    O C INTERNATIONAL INC
    one grant, 2018 · $25k
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
Refuge for Prodigals International Bible Ministries Inc
Religion
2
Hands of Hope Tucson

We are a Christ-based organization promoting a culture of life, hope, and healing. We offer free services to women and men facing unplanned pregnancy, perinatal loss, prevention services to youth and families, and recovery services to men…

Health
3
House of Refuge Faith Based
Human Services
4
Recoverychick

religious

Human Services
5
Hilo Ministries Inc

To be an organization where people are excited to assist in the love and care of the orphan and those in foster care, as well as providing temporary housing and training for those in the worldwide missionary field.

Human Services
6
Safe Haven Counseling Associates in

Biblical counseling

—
7
Dozen Ministries

Religious

Religion
8
Jesus in Vietnam Ministries
Religion
9
Prepare the Way Ministry

Education, Humanitarian, Community outreach and evangelism ministry. Provide Orphan Care, Train Youth in Career Paths, Train Pastors and Others in Bible School, Prison Ministry, Provide Elementary School for about 300 Children

International
10
Tijuana Christian Mission City of Refuge

Maintain and operate a home for needy and homeless children in mexico. development of programs and maintenance of home and churches in baja california mexico. also womens shelter for battered woman in rosarito. childrens home for needy…

International
11
Source of Hope Ministries
Religion
12
Refuge Host Homes

Refuge host homes is a link between the local church and pregnant women and their children to ensure that physical, spiritual, emotional, and mental needs are being met and the families that will host them.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hope Women's Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Forever Found. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

24 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. 24 of the 38 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/24
Grantees still filing
15/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WILDERNESS TRAILS INC: $190,300 · Human ServicesWILDERNESS TRAILS INCRESCUE MISSION ALLIANCE: $136,351 · Human ServicesRESCUE MISSION ALLIANCESARAHS HOUSE: $112,004 · Human ServicesSARAHS HOUSEHarvest Home Inc: $95,540 · Human ServicesHarvest Home IncQUENCHED: $65,000 · Human ServicesQUENCHEDAGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT INC: $55,394 · Human ServicesAGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT INC+5 more: $97,151 · Human Services+5 moreALONG SIDE MINISTRIES INC: $177,399 · OtherALONG SIDE MINISTRIES INCTHE JAMES STOREHOUSE INCORPORATED: $105,769 · OtherTHE JAMES STOREHOUSE INCORPORATEDURBAN PROMISE: $61,129 · OtherURBAN PROMISEFOUNDATIONS FOR RECOVERY: $35,000 · OtherFOUNDATIONS FOR RECOVERYOHANA HEALTH: $32,556 · OtherOHANA HEALTHCITY CENTER VENTURA: $32,222 · OtherCITY CENTER VENTURAO C INTERNATIONAL INC: $25,000 · OtherHUME LAKE CHRISTIAN CAMPS INC: $25,000 · OtherTINY TREASURES: $24,025 · OtherWESTMONT FUND: $20,000 · Other+7 more: $55,022 · Other+7 moreSPIRIT OF SANTA PAULA: $91,545 · ReligionZOE INTERNATIONAL: $25,000 · ReligionYOUTH 71FIVE MINISTRIES: $68,800 · Youth DevelopmentFELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES: $16,690 · Youth DevelopmentMITCHELL SWABACK CHARITIES INC: $37,700 · PhilanthropyTHE CLEAR WATER PROJECT INC: $33,130 · PhilanthropyCHILDREN RESCUE MISSION: $12,300 · PhilanthropyPhoenix Inner City Kids: $46,417 · HealthReal Options Womens Clinic: $19,012 · HealthETERNITY BIBLE COLLEGE: $20,000 · Education
Human Services$751,740Other$593,122Religion$116,545Youth Development$85,490Philanthropy$83,130Health$65,429Education$20,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWILDERNESS TRAILS INC: $190,300 over 7y, 18% of budgetALONG SIDE MINISTRIES INC: $177,399 over 3y, 9.4% of budgetRESCUE MISSION ALLIANCE: $136,351 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetSARAHS HOUSE: $112,004 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetTHE JAMES STOREHOUSE INCORPORATED: $105,769 over 6y, 6.3% of budgetHarvest Home Inc: $95,540 over 3y, 6.2% of budgetSPIRIT OF SANTA PAULA: $91,545 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetYOUTH 71FIVE MINISTRIES: $68,800 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetQUENCHED: $65,000 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetAGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT INC: $55,394 over 5y, 2.2% of budgetPhoenix Inner City Kids: $46,417 over 2y, 20% of budgetMITCHELL SWABACK CHARITIES INC: $37,700 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetFOUNDATIONS FOR RECOVERY: $35,000 over 3y, 26% of budgetZOE INTERNATIONAL: $25,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTHE PREGNANCY CENTER: $22,480 over 4y, 1.9% of budgetETERNITY BIBLE COLLEGE: $20,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetSouthern Oregon Axe of Kindness: $19,469 over 2y, 42% of budgetReal Options Womens Clinic: $19,012 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetHOPE WOMEN'S CENTER INC: $18,075 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetFELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES: $16,690 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOREVER FOUND: $15,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetCHILDREN RESCUE MISSION: $12,300 over 1y, 4.5% 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 WILDERNESS TRAILS INC ↗
  • Who funds ALONG SIDE MINISTRIES INC ↗
  • Who funds RESCUE MISSION ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds SARAHS HOUSE ↗
  • Who funds THE JAMES STOREHOUSE INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds Harvest Home Inc ↗
  • Who funds SPIRIT OF SANTA PAULA ↗
  • Who funds YOUTH 71FIVE MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds QUENCHED ↗
  • Who funds AGAPE HOUSE OF PRESCOTT INC ↗
  • Who funds Phoenix Inner City Kids ↗
  • Who funds MITCHELL SWABACK CHARITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds FOUNDATIONS FOR RECOVERY ↗
  • Who funds THE CLEAR WATER PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds ZOE INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds THE PREGNANCY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds HEARTLINE MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds ETERNITY BIBLE COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds Southern Oregon Axe of Kindness ↗
  • Who funds Real Options Womens Clinic ↗
  • Who funds HOPE WOMEN'S CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES ↗
  • Who funds FOREVER FOUND ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN RESCUE MISSION ↗

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.

Christian Foundation …Christian Community F…Natl Christian Charit…Washington Federal Fo…Raymond James Charita…The Blackbaud Giving …The Bank of America C…Charities Aid Foundat…American Endowment Fo…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…National Philanthropi…
Christian Foundation of America DBA Christian Foundation of The WestCA19.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Christian Foundation of America DBA Christian Foundation of The West · Christian Community Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Washington Federal Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · American Endowment Foundation · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · National Philanthropic Trust

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 Mabry Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mabry Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 16%
  • Youth 71FIVE Ministries: 16% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Mabry Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Mabry 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 38 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 Mabry’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