Skip to content
Price Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Price Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$37k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$12k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$127kHuman Services$61kHousing & Shelter$48kHealth$35kCommunity Improvement$15kReligion$10kPhilanthropy$10kEmployment$6kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $22k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Chaffey College$12,048
San Antonio Hospital Foundation$10,000
Inland Valley Hope Partners$5,000
Pacific Lifeline$5,000
Samaritan Conseling Center$5,000
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 (FY21–25, $18k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Samaritan Conseling Center: $5k → 14%WARRIOR FOR CHILDREN: $5k → 14%OPARC: $5k → 14%OPARC: $3k → 14%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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$414k · 7 repeat orgs$98k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +53% since the first grant, against +21% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
18

Total granted

$414k
$93k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+53%
+21%

Still filing today

43%
39%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
Human ServicesHealthEducationFood & 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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2017–2019 · $198k
  • CC
    CHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
    9× · 2017–2025 · $114k
  • IV
    INLAND VALLEY COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
    5× · 2019–2025 · $37k

Funded once

  • CC
    Chaffey College Price Foundation Emergency Fund
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • LB
    LIFE BIBLE FELLOWSHIP INC
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • RC
    ROTARY CLUB OF UPLAND FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue +21%
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
Westcare California Inc

To provide substance abuse prevention & treatment.

Health
2
Altamed Health Services Corporation

To eliminate disparities in health care access and outcomes by providing superior quality health and human services through an integrated world-class delivery system for latino, multi-ethnic underserved communities in southern california.

Health
3
United Health Centers of the San Joaquin

The organization is committed to the lifetime wellness of the communities by providing accessible, comprehensive quality health care to everyone with compassion and respect, regardless of ability to pay.

Health
4
Family Health Centers of San Diego Inc

Fhcsd's primary mission is to provide comprehensive, accessible and quality health care services to all income levels with a special committment to low income medically underserved individuals.

Health
5
Community Medical Centers Inc

The organization provides primary medical, behavior health, and dental care to the population of san joaquin, and solano counties without regard to patients' ability to pay.

Health
6
South Central Family Health Center

To improve the quality of life for the diverse communities we serve providing affordable and comprehensive healthcare and education in a welcoming multi-cultural environment.

Health
7
Upmc Western Maryland Corporation

The mission of upmc western maryland is to serve our community by providing outstanding patient care and to shape tomorrow's health system through clinical & technological innovation, research and education.

Health
8
San Fernando Community Hospital

Provides primary care, oral health, and behavioral health care, including health education to the community without regard to the ability to pay for services.

Health
9
Axis Community Health Inc

To provide health care, behavioral health services and support services to the residents of the tri-valley area surrounding communities in eastern alameda county, california.axis community health inc.'s mission is to provide quality,…

Health
10
Almaden Valley Counseling Service Inc

Avcs is committed to meeting the mental health concerns of all ages with an emphasis on youth. avcs offers a full range of counseling services which supports and promotes personal growth, positive family relationships and emotional…

Health
11
Watts Healthcare Corporation

To operate a medical clinics and shall promote health and other programs within the city of los angeles and the immediately surrounding areas.

Health
12
Upvalley Family Centers of Napa County

The mission of the UpValley Family Centers is to provide guidance, support and resources in the community, in the home and for the individual so that everyone can achieve a better life. We serve youth, adults and families in the…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lmws Inc; the most unlike its peers is Adonai. 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

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 26 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)
2
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

Individual grant recipient: $198,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT: $113,548 · OtherCHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTINLAND VALLEY COUNCIL OF CHURCHES: $37,000 · OtherINLAND VALLEY COUNCIL OF CHURCHESFAMILY FOOTHILL SHELTER: $33,000 · OtherFAMILY FOOTHILL SHELTER+14 more: $79,200 · Other+14 moreSan Antonio Hospital Foundation Inc: $15,000 · HealthVNACARE: $5,000 · HealthOPARC: $7,500 · Human ServicesWARRIOR FOR CHILDREN: $5,000 · Human ServicesSAMARITAN COUNSELING CENTER: $5,000 · Human ServicesROTARY CLUB OF UPLAND FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · EducationUPLAND HIGHLAND REGIMENT BOOSTERS INC: $2,000 · EducationADONAI: $2,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$460,748Health$20,000Human Services$17,500Education$12,000Food & Nutrition$2,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSan Antonio Hospital Foundation Inc: $15,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetLMWS INC: $10,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetROTARY CLUB OF UPLAND FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetOPARC: $7,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWEST END YMCA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWARRIOR FOR CHILDREN: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSAMARITAN COUNSELING CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetVNACARE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetADONAI: $2,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetUPLAND HIGHLAND REGIMENT BOOSTERS INC: $2,000 over 1y, 1.8% 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 San Antonio Hospital Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds LMWS INC ↗
  • Who funds ROTARY CLUB OF UPLAND FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds OPARC ↗
  • Who funds WEST END YMCA ↗
  • Who funds WARRIOR FOR CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds FOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER INC ↗
  • Who funds SAMARITAN COUNSELING CENTER ↗
  • Who funds VNACARE ↗
  • Who funds ADONAI ↗
  • Who funds UPLAND HIGHLAND REGIMENT BOOSTERS INC ↗

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.

Inland Empire Communi…James L White Foundat…Ontario Community Fou…The Rauch Family Foun…Inland Empire United …Columbus FoundationKaiser Foundation Hos…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Inland Empire Community FoundationCA21.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Inland Empire Community Foundation · James L White Foundation · Ontario Community Foundation · The Rauch Family Foundation · Inland Empire United Way · Columbus Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · The Bank of America Charitable 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 Price Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Price Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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
    5report 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 26 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 Price’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