Skip to content

· Private foundation

Otto Family 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.

$220k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

International$519kHuman Services$375kHealth$330kEducation$304kPublic Safety & Disaster$173kCivil Rights$130kYouth Development$110kFood & Nutrition$25kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $70k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $150k
$40,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$4.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
International Rescue Committee$150,000
University of Washington Medicine$40,000
Scripps Health Foundation$20,000
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center$10,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%WINTHROP MA COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY: $5k → 16%PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL: $50k → 11%Urban Peace Institute: $25k → 14%RIVKIN CENTER: $8k → 9%Scripps Health Foundation: $20k → 11%Within Reach: $80k → 9%PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 11%Within Reach: $80k → 9%Scripps Health Foundation: $20k → 11%WITHIN REACH: $75k → 9%ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Cty: $30k → 11%WITHIN REACH: $73k → 9%ACLU OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUN: $25k → 11%WITHIN REACH: $50k → 9%THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRI: $25k → 11%WITHIN REACH: $10k → 9%ACLU OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUN: $15k → 11%University of Washington Medicine: $40k → 9%ACLU OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUN: $10k → 11%University of Washington Medicine: $40k → 9%SCRIPPS HEALTH FOUNDATION: $60k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FDN: $50k → 9%SCRIPPS HEALTH FOUNDATION: $50k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FDN: $40k → 9%Scripps Health Foundation: $30k → 11%Univ Of Washington Foundation: $30k → 9%SCRIPPS HEALTH FOUNDATION: $25k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FDN: $15k → 9%JACOBS AND CUSHMAN SAN DIEGO FOOD B: $20k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FDN: $15k → 9%SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: $119k → 11%Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $10k → 9%FILM SERIES GRANTS: $3k → 11%University of Washington Foundation: $10k → 9%ACLU San Diego Imperial Counties: $10k → 11%THE SEATTLE CANCER CARE ALLIANCE: $10k → 9%International Rescue Committee: $150k → 11%NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT: $15k → 9%International rescue Committee: $150k → 11%MAX FOUNDATION: $5k → 9%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE - SD: $88k → 11%Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $10k → 9%International Rescue Committee-SD: $85k → 11%NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT: $10k → 9%International Rescue Committee: $80k → 11%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE - SD: $55k → 11%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE - SD: $55k → 11%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE - SD: $53k → 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.
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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 11 repeat orgs$264k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +61% since the first grant, against -72% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
11

Total granted

$1.7M
$264k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+61%
-72%

Still filing today

73%
9%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
InternationalHealthEducationOther
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

  • W
    WITHINREACH
    6× · 2018–2023 · $368k · revenue +101%
  • SH
    SCRIPPS HEALTH
    7× · 2018–2025 · $215k · revenue +61%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
    6× · 2018–2023 · $160k · revenue +46%

Funded once

  • SD
    SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
    one grant, 2017 · $119k
  • AO
    ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Cty
    one grant, 2022 · $30k
  • TS
    THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRI
    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
Management Sciences for Health Inc

(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.

International
2
Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation

Partners In Health (PIH) is a non-profit, global health organization that fights social injustice by bringing the benefits of modern medical science first and foremost to the most vulnerable communities worldwide. In Haiti, Malawi, Rwanda,…

Health
3
International Medical Corps

To save lives & relieve suffering through health interventions & related activities that strengthen communities affected by conflict, natural disasters & disease outbreaks.

International
4
Project Hope - the People-to-People Health Foundation Inc

To conduct and support programs and activities aimed at solving some of the world's greatest public health challenges, with a specific focus on enabling health workers to have the greatest possible impact on the health of the people they…

International
5
International Committee of the Red Cross

The international committee of the red cross (switzerland)(icrc) is an impartial, neutral, and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and of violence…

International
6
Women in Global Health Inc

Women in global health (wgh) is a global movement and organization that brings together all genders and backgrounds to achieve gender equality in global health leadership.

Public Benefit
7
Pathfinder International

Pathfinder expands access to sexual and reproductive health services, opening the door to opportunities for women and all individuals to thrive-economically, educationally, and civically. driven by our country-led leadership and local…

International
8
Guttmacher Institute Inc

The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.

—
9
MRIGlobal

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

Science & Tech
10
Intrahealth International Inc

Our mission is to improve the performance of health workers and strengthen the systems in which they work.

Health
11
Magee-Womens Research Institute and Foundation

The mission of Magee-Womens Research Institute and Foundation is to advance scientific knowledge in the fields of reproductive biology and women's health; translate this knowledge into improved health for women and infants; train current…

Health
12
Access to Advanced Health Institute

Aahi is a nonprofit biotech research institute, bringing together the best experts, technologies, and platforms to create accessible, high-quality products and solutions for harnessing the immune system to alleviate disease.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Human Rights Watch Inc; the most unlike its peers is Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. 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

9 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. 9 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WITHINREACH: $367,900 · OtherWITHINREACHINTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE - SD: $337,424 · OtherINTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE - SDSAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: $119,000 · OtherSAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTUniversity of Washington Medicine: $80,000 · OtherUniversity of Washington MedicineACLU OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUN: $50,000 · Other+10 more: $165,200 · Other+10 moreInternational Rescue Committee INC: $380,000 · InternationalInternational Rescue Commi…PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL: $60,000 · InternationalPROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIO…HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC: $25,000 · InternationalHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INCSCRIPPS HEALTH: $215,000 · HealthSCRIPPS HEALTHFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $30,000 · HealthFred Hutchinso…+1 more: $5,000 · HealthUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $160,000 · EducationUNIVERSIT…
Other$1,119,524International$465,000Health$250,000Education$160,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $380,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWITHINREACH: $367,900 over 6y, 1.0% of budgetSCRIPPS HEALTH: $215,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $160,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL: $60,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT: $25,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MAX FOUNDATION: $5,000 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.

  • Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
  • Who funds WITHINREACH ↗
  • Who funds SCRIPPS HEALTH ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center ↗
  • Who funds NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
  • Who funds THE MAX FOUNDATION ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Otto Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Otto Family 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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
    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 Otto Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Otto Family 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Otto Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph