Skip to content
Pape Foundation Ima at a glance

· Private foundation

Pape Foundation Ima

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.

$55k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Philanthropy$313kArts & Culture$28kYouth Development$20kEnvironment$5kRecreation & Sports$2kFood & Nutrition$2kEducation$1k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $39k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$630k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ANDREW S RODDICK FOUNDATION INC$20,000
ZACHARY SCOTT THEATER CENTER$19,200
THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY$5,000
AUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE$5,000
UMLAUF SCULPTURE GARDEN & MUSEUM$2,500
WINE AND FOOD FOUNDATION OF TEXAS$2,000
4 ATX FOUNDATION$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, 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%WINE AND FOOD FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $2k → 10%COMERICA CHARITABLE TRUST: $313k → 14%THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY: $5k → 10%AUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE: $5k → 10%ZACHARY SCOTT THEATER CENTER: $19k → 10%UMLAUF SCULPTURE GARDEN & MUSEUM: $3k → 10%WESTLAKE CHAP CLUB: $1k → 10%4 ATX FOUNDATION: $1k → 10%ANDREW S RODDICK FOUNDATION INC: $20k → 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 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
The Austin Area Commission for the Arts Inc

Austin area arts applauds and advances all arts by welcoming diverse, creative individuals to share their unique talents to inspire our community.

Philanthropy
2
Austin City Art Fund

To support the production and exhibition of art and film

Arts & Culture
3
Austin Area Foundation

Support nonprofit organizations by managing & distributing charitable gifts

Philanthropy
4
Austin Public Library Friends Foundation

Support and strengthen austin public libraries

Education
5
Glasstire

Glasstire is a website about visual art in Texas. Our mission is to expand the conversation about visual art in Texas.

Arts & Culture
6
Austin Creative Reuse

Fostering conservation and reuse through creativity, education, and community building.

Human Services
7
Austin Creative Alliance

The mission of Austin Creative Alliance is to advance, connect, and celebrate Austin's arts, culture, and creative communities in order to nourish and strengthen the character, quality of life, and economic prosperity of our region.

Arts & Culture
8
Forty First Foundation

The forty first foundation supports and advances the university of texas at austin in its pursuit of excellence. we work closely with the office of the president to identify, fund, and implement strategic initiatives that enhance the…

Education
9
Leadership Austin

Leadership austin connects and develops leaders to courageously engage and transform our communities.

Youth Development
10
The University of Texas Foundation No 1

To support the university of texas system

—
11
Texas a&M-Corpus Christi Foundation

For the benefit of texas a&m university - corpus christi

Education
12
Texas Cultural Trust Council

Public arts funding

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Austin Theatre Alliance; the most unlike its peers is Comerica Charitable Trust. 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

10 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.

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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COMERICA CHARITABLE TRUST: $312,860 · PhilanthropyCOMERICA CHARITABLE TRUST+1 more: $2,000 · PhilanthropyZACHARY SCOTT THEATRE CENTER: $19,200 · Arts & CultureAUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE: $6,000 · Arts & CultureUMLAUF SCULPTURE GARDEN & MUSEUM: $2,500 · Arts & CultureANDREW S RODDICK FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentThe Trail Conservancy: $5,000 · EnvironmentEX-STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION OF UT: $1,200 · EducationWESTLAKE CHAP CLUB INC: $1,000 · Education4ATX FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Recreation & Sports
Philanthropy$314,860Arts & Culture$27,700Youth Development$20,000Environment$5,000Education$2,200Recreation & Sports$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 budgetCOMERICA CHARITABLE TRUST: $312,860 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetAUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUMLAUF SCULPTURE GARDEN & MUSEUM: $2,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE WINE & FOOD FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $2,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetEX-STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION OF UT: $1,200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWESTLAKE CHAP CLUB INC: $1,000 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.

Austin Community Foun…Alice Kleberg Reynold…Better Business BureauTexas Instruments Fou…United Way WorldwideThe Blackbaud Giving …Ibm International Fou…Raymond James Charita…Gs Donor Advised Phil…The Pfizer Foundation…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…
Austin Community Foundation IncTX17.3× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Austin Community Foundation Inc · Alice Kleberg Reynolds Meyer Foundat A0479800 · Better Business Bureau · Texas Instruments Foundation · United Way Worldwide · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Ibm International Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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 Pape Foundation Ima funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pape Foundation Ima. 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%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 10 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 Pape Foundation Ima’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