Skip to content
PRIDE Industries at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

PRIDE Industries

To create employment for people with disabilities.

$2.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$2.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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.

Employment$45MCommunity Improvement$175kHuman Services$36kFood & Nutrition$10kCivil Rights$10k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $57k
  • $250k+1 grant · $2.8M
$2,777,855
Median grant
1
States reached
$167M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PRIDE Industries One Inc$2,777,855
Greater Sacramento Economic Council$56,500
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 6%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Pride Industries One Inc: $12.3M → 6%Greater Sacramento Economic Council: $63k → 12%Emergency Food Bank: $10k → 12%NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund Inc: $10k → 17%Great El Paso Chamber of Commerce: $6k → 21%Fisher House Foundation: $10k → 8%PRIDE Industries One Inc: $11.4M → 6%Greater Sacramento Economic Council: $57k → 12%Fisher House Foundation: $10k → 8%Pride Industries One Inc: $7.1M → 6%Greater Sacramento Economic Council: $50k → 12%Fisher House Foundation: $8k → 8%Pride Industries One Inc: $5.8M → 6%Fisher House Foundation: $8k → 8%PRIDE Industries One Inc: $2.8M → 6%Pride Industries One Inc: $58k → 6%PRIDE Industries One Inc: $5.4M → 6%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$45M · 3 repeat orgs$26k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +142% since the first grant, against +53% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
3

Total granted

$45M
$26k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+142%
+53%

Still filing today

100%
100%

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
EmploymentCommunity ImprovementCivil RightsOther
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

  • PI
    PRIDE Industries One Inc
    7× · 2017–2025 · $45M · revenue +142%
  • GS
    GREATER SACRAMENTO AREA ECONOMIC COUNCIL
    3× · 2023–2025 · $169k · revenue +313%
  • FH
    FISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $36k · revenue +32%

Funded once

  • NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue -54%
  • EF
    EMERGENCY FOOD BANKgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +53%
  • EP
    EL PASO CHAMBER OF COMMERCEgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $6k · revenue +53%
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
04the grantee network

6 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PRIDE Industries One Inc: $44,835,876 · EmploymentPRIDE Industries One IncGREATER SACRAMENTO AREA ECONOMIC COUNCIL: $169,000 · Community ImprovementFISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC: $36,000 · OtherEMERGENCY FOOD BANK: $10,000 · OtherEL PASO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $6,000 · OtherNAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC: $10,000 · Civil Rights
Employment$44,835,876Community Improvement$169,000Other$52,000Civil Rights$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPRIDE Industries One Inc: $44,835,876 over 7y, 7.0% of budgetGREATER SACRAMENTO AREA ECONOMIC COUNCIL: $169,000 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetFISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC: $36,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEMERGENCY FOOD BANK: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEL PASO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $6,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization PRIDE Industries funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from PRIDE Industries. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 6 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 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 PRIDE Industries’ 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