Skip to content
Olafson Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Olafson Foundation

Its FY2019 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$62k
Granted FY2018
17
Grants FY2018
2
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2018.

Health$80kHousing & Shelter$13kHuman Services$12kEducation$6kAnimals$4kArts & Culture$2kYouth Development$2kRecreation & Sports$1kOther$0
02FY2018 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k15 grants · $32k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
$2,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COLUMBUS FOUNDATION$20,000
UTAH AUTISM ACADEMY$10,000
LUEKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETY$5,000
RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE$5,000
FOURTH STREET CLINIC$2,500
HELTER FOR HOMELESSINC$2,500
THE LANTERN HOUSE$2,500
KUER$2,500
GUADALUPE SCHOOL$2,500
UTAH ANIMAL ADOPTION CENTER$2,000
EXPLOITS VALLEY SPCA$2,000
BAD DOG ARTS$1,000
CROHNS AND COLITIS FOUNDATION$1,000
UTAH PRIDE CENTER$1,000
WASATCH BACKCOUNTRY ALLIANCE$1,000
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 (FY18–18, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 5%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 5%UTAH PRIDE CENTER: $1k → 8%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.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$88k · 8 repeat orgs$34k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +69% since the first grant, against -63% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
5

Total granted

$88k
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+69%
-63%

Still filing today

75%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
HealthEducationYouth DevelopmentAnimalsHuman ServicesEnvironmentOther
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

  • UA
    UTAH AUTISM ACADEMY
    2× · 2017–2018 · $35k · revenue +69%
  • RM
    Ronald McDonald House Charities of the Intermountain Area Inc
    2× · 2017–2018 · $10k · revenue +140%
  • WH
    Wasatch Homeless Health Care
    2× · 2017–2018 · $5k · revenue +94%

Funded once

  • LA
    LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETY
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • ST
    SHELTER THE HOMELESS INC
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue -63%
  • LH
    LOGBERG HEIMSKRINGLA INC
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
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
Autism Foundation of Utah
Health
2
Utah Housing Coalition Inc

The promotion of low-income housing within the state of utah.

—
3
Utah Public Lands Alliance
Education
4
Utah Swat Inc
—
5
Family Promise - Salt Lake

We help families experiencing homelessness find lasting independence and security.

Housing & Shelter
6
Utah Geological Foundation
—
7
Utah Regional Housing Corporation

Provide housing to low-income families in provo, utah.

Housing & Shelter
8
Shelter Providers of Utah

To help people experiencing or at risk of homelessness build new lives through construction, community engagement, and education.

—
9
Recreation and Habilitation Services (Rah)

Provides services and supports to individuals in Utah County who have intellectual disabilities.

—
10
Ability 1st Utah

Assisting persons with disabilities to develop independent living and social skills, assisting with housing and transportation needs, rights advocacy, and counseling.

Human Services
11
Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce

Stimulate local business establishment, growth, and development by facilitating business to business and business to community relationships throughout Utah County.

—
12
Association for Utah Community Health

Provide increased access to comprehensive health care to medically underserved.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Utah Pride Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Wasatch Backcountry Alliance. 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

12 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. 12 of the 22 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETY: $10,000 · OtherLEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETYSHELTER THE HOMELESS INC: $5,000 · OtherSHELTER THE HOMELESS INCGUADALUPE SCHOOL: $5,000 · OtherGUADALUPE SCHOOLST ANNE'S CENTER: $5,000 · OtherST ANNE'S CENTERLUEKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETY: $5,000 · OtherLUEKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETYEXPLOITS VALLEY SPCA: $3,500 · OtherEXPLOITS VALLEY SPCAUNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $2,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF UTAHHELTER FOR HOMELESSINC: $2,500 · OtherHELTER FOR HOMELESSINC+4 more: $3,500 · Other+4 moreCOLUMBUS FOUNDATION INC: $22,500 · HealthCOLUMBUS FOUNDATION INCRonald McDonald House Charities of the Intermountain Area Inc: $10,000 · HealthRonald McDonald House Charities of …Wasatch Homeless Health Care: $5,000 · HealthWasatch Homeless Health Care+1 more: $1,000 · HealthUTAH AUTISM ACADEMY: $35,000 · EducationUTAH AUTISM ACADEMY+1 more: $500 · EducationUTAH ANIMAL ADOPTION CENTER: $2,000 · AnimalsBAD DOG ARTS: $2,000 · Youth DevelopmentUtah Pride Center Inc: $1,000 · Human ServicesWASATCH BACKCOUNTRY ALLIANCE: $1,000 · Environment
Other$42,000Health$38,500Education$35,500Animals$2,000Youth Development$2,000Human Services$1,000Environment$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUTAH AUTISM ACADEMY: $35,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCOLUMBUS FOUNDATION INC: $22,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetRonald McDonald House Charities of the Intermountain Area Inc: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWasatch Homeless Health Care: $5,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSHELTER THE HOMELESS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetST ANNE'S CENTER: $5,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUTAH ANIMAL ADOPTION CENTER: $2,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetBAD DOG ARTS: $2,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF UTAH AVALANCHE FORE CAST CENTER INC: $500 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.

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.

Lawrence & Janet Dee …The Community Foundat…Hemingway FoundationGeorge S and Dolores …American Express Foun…Herbert I & Elsa B Mi…Willard L Eccles Char…McCarthey Family Foun…Ihc Health Services I…Pacificorp Foundation…Sorenson Legacy Found…Dominion Energy Chari…
Lawrence & Janet Dee FoundationUT19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Lawrence & Janet Dee Foundation · The Community Foundation of Utah · Hemingway Foundation · George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · American Express Foundation · Herbert I & Elsa B Michael Foundation US Bank National Association · Willard L Eccles Charitable Foundation · McCarthey Family Foundation · Ihc Health Services Inc · Pacificorp Foundation Aka Pacific Power Foundation Aka Rocky Mountain Power Foundati · Sorenson Legacy Foundation · Dominion Energy Charitable 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 Olafson Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Olafson 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%13%25%38%50%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 · 0–50%
    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 Olafson Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Olafson 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 22 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2019) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2018, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Olafson’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