Skip to content
Norman R & L Racheal Gangestad Davis Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Norman R & L Racheal Gangestad Davis 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.

$7k
Granted FY2024still arriving
15
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2024 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$250
Median grant
6
States reached
$6.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE INC$1,000
UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF$1,000
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC$1,000
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY$1,000
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION INC$1,000
THE CATHERINE MCAULEY CENTER INC$500
THE SALVATION ARMY$250
MERCY MEDICAL CENTER$250
ST JUDE CHILDRENS RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC$250
VESTERHEIM NORWEGIAN AMERICAN MUSEUM$200
FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH$200
CEDAR RAPIDS PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION$200
ST OLAF LUTHERAN CHURCH$200
WARTBURG COLLEGE$100
IOWA PBS FOUNDATION$100
02The need
02

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 (FY24–24, $500) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%THE CATHERINE MCAULEY CENTER INC: $500 → 9%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 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
Minnesota Medical Association

To be the leading voice of medicine to make minnesota the healthiest state and the best place to practice.

—
2
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

See schedule ouniversity corporation for atmospheric research (ucar), on behalf of, and in cooperation with its member university members, is engaged in the management of long-term atmospheric and related research and educational…

Science & Tech
3
Western Electricity Coordinating Council

To effectively and efficiently mitigate risks to the reliability and security of the western interconnection's bulk power system.

Public Benefit
4
University of Iowa Research Foundation

The university of iowa research foundation's (uirf) mission is to: advance, develop, increase and extend the progress of science and useful arts through encouraging and assisting investigation, research and education at the state…

—
5
Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States Inc

The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…

Health
6
American College of Radiology

The american college of radiology (acr) is organized to advance radiology science, practice and access, improve quality and safety, provide continuing education for radiology and allied professionals, and achieve better outcomes through…

Health
7
Cornell University

Education, research, medical services and other public services.

Education
8
MRIGlobal

To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.

Science & Tech
9
Rush Copley Medical Center

To improve the health of the individuals and diverse communities we serve through the integration of outstanding patient care, education, research and community partnerships.

Health
10
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
11
The Medical College of Wisconsin Inc

The medical college of wisconsin (mcw) is a distinguished leader and innovator in the education and development of the next generation of physicians, (continued in schedule o)

Education
12
Children's Physicians

Children's physicians delivers the highest quality pediatric primary care while supporting education and research.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Catherine Mcauley Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is International Rescue Committee Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 15 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

International Rescue Committee INC: $1,000 · InternationalInternational Rescue Committee INCUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $1,000 · InternationalUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEFMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $1,000 · InternationalMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INCAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: $1,000 · OtherAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETYTHE SALVATION ARMY: $250 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYST OLAF LUTHERAN CHURCH: $200 · OtherST OLAF LUTHERAN CHURCHFIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH: $200 · OtherFIRST LUTHERAN CHURCHIOWA PBS FOUNDATION: $100 · OtherIOWA PBS FOUNDATIONAmerican Heart Association Inc: $1,000 · HealthAmerican Heart Associat…ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $250 · HealthST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESE…MERCY MEDICAL CENTER: $250 · HealthMERCY MEDICAL CENTERCATHERINE MCAULEY CENTER INC: $500 · Human ServicesCEDAR RAPIDS PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $200 · EducationWARTBURG COLLEGE: $100 · EducationVESTERHEIM NORWEGIAN-AMERICAN MUSEUM: $200 · Arts & Culture
International$3,000Other$1,750Health$1,500Human Services$500Education$300Arts & Culture$200

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCATHERINE MCAULEY CENTER INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMERCY MEDICAL CENTER: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCEDAR RAPIDS PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVESTERHEIM NORWEGIAN-AMERICAN MUSEUM: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWARTBURG COLLEGE: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetIOWA PBS FOUNDATION: $100 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.

Alliant Energy Founda…John P & Lawrence J G…Greater Cedar Rapids …American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Alliant Energy Foundation IncWI15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · John P & Lawrence J Giacoletto Fnd · Greater Cedar Rapids Community Foundation · 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 Norman R & L Racheal Gangestad Davis Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Norman R & L Racheal Gangestad Davis 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 15 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 Norman R & L Racheal Gangestad Davis’ 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