Skip to content
Peter a & Vernice H Gasser Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Peter a & Vernice H Gasser Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$3.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
78
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$1.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Health$5.3MHousing & Shelter$4.6MEducation$1.8MCommunity Improvement$1.0MHuman Services$823kCrime & Legal$481kEnvironment$393kFood & Nutrition$359kOther$0
02FY2024 · 78 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k51 grants · $146k
  • $10k–50k18 grants · $319k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $840k
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.1M
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$84M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PARTNERSHIP HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA$1,770,000
MONARCH JUSTICE CENTER$375,000
QUEEN OF THE VALLEY FOUNDATION$200,000
JUSTIN-SIENA HIGH SCHOOL$200,000
CANV$177,000
NEWS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ABUSE$75,000
KOLBE ACADEMY & TRINITY PREP$70,000
ABODE SERVICES INC$60,000
SHARE THE CARE NAPA VALLEY$58,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NAPA VALLEY$42,500
RAIL ARTS DISTRICT$25,000
OUR TOWN ST HELENA$25,000
CENTER FOR VOLUNTEER & NONPROFIT LEADER$25,000
AMERICAN CANYON COMMUNITY AND PARKS FOUNDATION$20,000
RIANDA HOUSE SENIOR ACTIVITY CENTER$20,000
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 (FY20–24, $4.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%OUR TOWN ST HELENA: $100k → 9%WAYFINDER FAMILY SERVICES: $5k → 12%OUR TOWN ST HELENA: $25k → 9%UP VALLEY FAMILY CENTER: $25k → 9%OUR TOWN ST HELENA: $25k → 9%UPVALLEY FAMILY CENTER: $10k → 9%UP VALLEY FAMILY CENTER: $8k → 9%UPVALLEY FAMILY CENTERS: $10k → 9%UPVALLEY FAMILY CENTERS: $10k → 9%UPVALLEY FAMILY CENTERS: $2k → 9%ON THE MOVE: $852k → 9%NEWS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ABUSE: $75k → 9%COMMUNITY ACTION OF NAPA VALLEY: $30k → 9%COMMUNITY ACTION NAPA VALLEY: $30k → 9%COMMUNITY ACTION NAPA VALLEY: $30k → 9%NEWS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ABUSE: $25k → 9%ON THE MOVE: $10k → 9%ON THE MOVE: $10k → 9%ON THE MOVEVOICES: $10k → 9%COMMUNITY ACTION NAPA VALLEY: $10k → 9%ON THE MOVE: $10k → 9%ON THE MOVEVOICES: $10k → 9%ON THE MOVE: $8k → 9%NEWS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ABUSE: $5k → 9%NEWS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ABUSE: $4k → 9%COMMUNITY ACTION NAPA VALLEY: $2k → 9%NEWS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ABUSE: $2k → 9%COMMUNITY ACTION NAPA VALLEY: $2k → 9%MENTIS: $1.8M → 9%MONARCH JUSTICE CENTER: $375k → 9%MONARCH JUSTICE CENTER: $63k → 9%SHARE THE CARE NAPA VALLEY: $58k → 9%SHARE THE CARE NAPA VALLEY: $52k → 9%MENTIS: $50k → 9%SHARE THE CARE NAPA VALLEY: $50k → 9%SHARE THE CARE NAPA VALLEY: $50k → 9%MENTIS: $40k → 9%MONARCH JUSTIC CENTER: $35k → 9%SHARE THE CARE NAPA VALLEY: $25k → 9%COLLABRIA CARE: $17k → 9%COLLABRIA CARE: $17k → 9%SHARE THE CARE NAPA VALLEY: $16k → 9%MOLLY'S ANGELS: $15k → 9%MOLLY'S ANGELS: $13k → 9%MOLLY'S ANGELS: $12k → 9%MOLLY'S ANGELS: $12k → 9%MENTIS: $10k → 9%MONARCH JUSTIC CENTER: $6k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

52%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8.2M · 107 repeat orgs$7.4M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +44% since the first grant, against -2% for those funded once.

107 repeat relationships: 49 still active in FY2024, 58 since wound down; 28 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

107
74

Total granted

$8.2M
$5.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
-2%

Still filing today

31%
26%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 36% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.2M went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesHealthEducationArts & CultureHousing & ShelterFood & NutritionOther
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

  • M
    MENTIS
    4× · 2020–2023 · $1.9M · revenue +153%
  • OT
    ON THE MOVE
    5× · 2020–2024 · $909k · revenue +14%
  • MJ
    MONARCH JUSTICE CENTER
    3× · 2022–2024 · $479k · revenue ×12 · 91% of their budget

Funded once

  • BH
    Burbank Housing Corporationgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $4.3M · revenue +504% · 67% of their budget
  • SN
    SUSTAINABLE NAPA COUNTY
    one grant, 2021 · $157k · revenue -82%
  • NC
    NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
    one grant, 2020 · $142k
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
Napa County Seed Library
Environment
2
Napa-Solano Counties Building & Construction Trades Council

To provide education and training to promote healthy and safe working environments for its members.

—
3
Novato Parents Nursery School Inc

To deliver affordable, reliable, and safe child care in a nurturing environment, partnering with parents in the education and development of their children and serving the community as one family

Education
4
Sonoma Botanical Garden
—
5
Greater Napa Fair Housing Center

Assist renters in gaining access to fair housing. prevent discrimination by landlords and inform renters of their rights under the law.

Housing & Shelter
6
North Bay Bmx Inc

To Provide and Promote Bicycle Facilities, races, clinics, safety and riding skills training and community dates for the public.

Recreation & Sports
7
Nami Sonoma County

NAMI Sonoma County's mission is to build better lives for individuals and families affected by mental illness throughout Sonoma County by providing education, support, and advocacy.

—
8
Napa Valley Community Housing

To develop, own and manage affordable housing for low-income residents of napa county.

Health
9
Community Foundation of the Napa Valley

To mobilize resources, promote philanthropy and provide leadership on vital community issues in napa county. we look for charitable projects that make a lasting difference. we commit our resources to these projects, and inspire others to…

Philanthropy
10
Napa Valley Christian Education Group Dba Veritas Christian Academy

Our Mission Is To Partner With Parents To Educate, Develop, And Nurture Students For A Life Of Christ-centered Excellence In Academics, Christian Character, And Servant Leadership.

Education
11
Napa Valley Grapegrowers Foundation

Cultivate viticultural excellence and environmental stewardship for the napa valley, to be a local and global leader for a science-based approach to grape growing and agricultural stewardship, to ensure the viability and resiliency of…

Food & Nutrition
12
Downtown Napa Farmers Market Corporation

Provide equitable access to local produce, food, and artisan crafts to our whole community while creating opportunities for small farmers and businesses to thrive.

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Napa Valley Child Advocacy Network Inc; the most unlike its peers is E & M Presents Inc. 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

59 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 59 of the 209 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
17
Early backer (in before they grew)
58/59
Grantees still filing
43/59
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PARTNERSHIP HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA: $1,770,000 · OtherPARTNERSHIP HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIAJUSTIN-SIENA HIGH SCHOOL: $1,227,500 · OtherJUSTIN-SIENA HIGH SCHOOLCANV: $177,000 · Other+162 more: $1,988,720 · Other+162 moreBurbank Housing Corporation: $4,262,015 · Housing & ShelterBurbank Housing Corporation+2 more: $178,000 · Housing & ShelterMENTIS: $1,854,500 · Human ServicesMENTISON THE MOVE: $909,004 · Human ServicesON THE MOVEMONARCH JUSTICE CENTER: $478,600 · Human ServicesMONARCH JUSTICE CENTERShare the Care Napa Valley: $251,000 · Human ServicesShare the Care Napa ValleyOUR TOWN ST HELENA: $150,000 · Human Services+6 more: $369,402 · Human Services+6 moreQUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $1,304,000 · HealthQUEEN OF TH…OLE HEALTH: $125,500 · HealthOLE HEALTHPuertas Abiertas Community Resource Center: $70,710 · Health+6 more: $82,050 · HealthFEEDING IT FORWARD INC: $241,444 · Food & NutritionHANDS ACROSS THE VALLEY INC GEORGE ALTAMURA SR: $40,000 · Food & NutritionNAPA HIGH CHORAL BOOSTERS: $16,000 · EducationTHE NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationNAPA VALLEY FARMWORKER FOUNDATION: $5,000 · EducationIF GIVEN A CHANCE: $4,000 · EducationSTONE BRIDGE SCHOOL: $3,000 · EducationBLUE OAK SCHOOL: $2,500 · Education10000 DEGREES: $2,000 · EducationPROJECT GRADUATION: $1,500 · Education+1 more: $1,000 · EducationCope Family Center: $40,000 · Crime & Legal
Other$5,163,220Housing & Shelter$4,440,015Human Services$4,012,506Health$1,582,260Food & Nutrition$281,444Education$45,000Crime & Legal$40,000

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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 budgetBurbank Housing Corporation: $4,262,015 over 1y, 67% of budgetMENTIS: $1,854,500 over 4y, 24% of budgetQUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $1,304,000 over 4y, 8.8% of budgetON THE MOVE: $909,004 over 5y, 5.9% of budgetMONARCH JUSTICE CENTER: $478,600 over 3y, 91% of budgetShare the Care Napa Valley: $251,000 over 4y, 35% of budgetFEEDING IT FORWARD INC: $241,444 over 4y, 11% of budgetOUR TOWN ST HELENA: $150,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetOLE HEALTH: $125,500 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetCenter for Volunteer & Nonprofit Leadership: $119,214 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetNEWS: $110,600 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION OF NAPA VALLEY: $104,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCALISTOGA AFFORDABLE HOUSING INC: $103,000 over 4y, 18% of budgetAmerican Legion Post 113: $100,000 over 1y, 99% of budgetABODE SERVICES: $75,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTRINITY EDUCATION CENTER INC: $72,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetPuertas Abiertas Community Resource Center: $70,710 over 4y, 4.0% of budgetUPVALLEY FAMILY CENTERS OF NAPA COUNTY: $64,500 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetNAPA VALLEY ART ASSOCIATION: $58,990 over 1y, 64% of budgetMOLLYS ANGELS: $52,302 over 4y, 3.4% of budgetCatholic Charities San Bernardino & Riverside Counties: $49,650 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBOYS CLUB OF NAPA INC BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NAPA VALLEY: $45,500 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCope Family Center: $40,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetHANDS ACROSS THE VALLEY INC GEORGE ALTAMURA SR: $40,000 over 4y, 4.1% of budgetCOLLABRIA CARE: $33,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN CANYON COMMUNITY & PARKS FOUNDATION: $32,500 over 3y, 3.1% of budgetPROGRESS FOUNDATION: $26,150 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetNAPA VALLEY MUSEUM: $25,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetNAPA COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION: $22,900 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetSERENITY HOMES OF NAPA VALLEY: $20,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetNAPA HIGH CHORAL BOOSTERS: $16,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetCommunity Resources for Children: $15,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTHE NAPA COMMUNITIES FIREWISE FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetNAPA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $10,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetNAPA COMMUNITY ANIMAL RESPONSE TEAM: $10,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetE & M PRESENTS INC: $9,500 over 3y, 7.7% of budgetSt Helena Montessori School Inc: $8,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetNAPA VALLEY MUSIC ASSOCIATES: $6,000 over 1y, 22% of budgetNAPA VALLEY CHILD ADVOCACY NETWORK INC: $6,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetWayfinder Family Services: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINNOVATIVE HEALTH SOLUTIONS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetNAPA VALLEY FARMWORKER FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetIF GIVEN A CHANCE: $4,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetAL AMANECER BOXING CLUB: $3,938 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetSTONE BRIDGE SCHOOL: $3,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBLUE OAK SCHOOL: $2,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNAPA COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION: $2,500 over 1y, 2.1% 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.

Community Foundation …Craig and Kathryn Hal…McNabb FoundationNapa Valley Vintners …Winiarski Family Foun…Syar Foundation Susan…St Joseph Health Nort…Kaiser Foundation Hos…The California Wellne…Community Projects IncThe Woods Charitable …Hands Across the Vall…
Community Foundation of the Napa ValleyCA78.6× affinity36 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of the Napa Valley · Craig and Kathryn Hall Foundation · McNabb Foundation · Napa Valley Vintners Healthy Community Fund · Winiarski Family Foundation · Syar Foundation Susan L Syar Director · St Joseph Health Northern California LLC · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · The California Wellness Foundation · Community Projects Inc · The Woods Charitable Foundation · Hands Across the Valley Inc George Altamura Sr

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 Peter a & Vernice H Gasser Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Peter a & Vernice H Gasser Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    23report 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 Peter a & Vernice H Gasser Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Peter a & Vernice H Gasser 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 209 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 Peter a & Vernice H Gasser’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