Skip to content
Shaluly Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Shaluly Foundation Inc

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.

$5.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$5.5M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$8.6MMembership Benefit$5.5MArts & Culture$500kHuman Services$200kCommunity Improvement$101kPhilanthropy$85kEmployment$71kYouth Development$22kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $21k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
  • $250k+1 grant · $5.5M
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$507k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GRAND LODGE OF THE ENGLIS$5,500,000
Individual grant recipient$100,018
Individual grant recipient$25,000
CHI CHI RODRIGUEZ FOUNDATION$10,000
SPARK FORCE$5,211
SME SUNCOAST CHAPTER 19 M$5,211
AMSKILLS APPRENTICESHIP F$5,211
BAY AREA MANUFACTURING AS$5,211
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 8%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 1% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%SUPREME GRAND LODGE OF AMORC: $2.0M → 8%AMSKILLS APPRENTICESHIP FOUNDATION: $9k → 11%AMRC QUEBEC: $100k → 12%SOCIETY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS: $6k → 21%NUTS BOLTS AND THINGAMAJIGS: $9k → 8%NUTS BOLTS & THINGAMAJIGS FOUNDATION: $6k → 15%ROSICRUCIAN ORDER AMORC: $1.5M → 8%AMSKILLS APPRENTICESHIP FOUNDATION: $7k → 11%UPPER TAMPA BAY CHAMBER EDUCATION: $6k → 12%SOCIETY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS: $6k → 21%NUTS BOLTS AND THINGAMAJIGS: $7k → 8%NUTS BOLTS & THINGAMAJIGS FOUNDATION: $6k → 15%SUPREME GRAND LODGE OF AMORC: $1.3M → 8%AMSKILLS APPRENTICESHIP FOUNDATION: $7k → 11%UPPER TAMPA BAY CHAMBER EDUCATION: $6k → 12%SOCIETY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS: $6k → 21%NUTS BOLTS AND THINGAMAJIGS: $7k → 8%NUTS BOLTS & THINGAMAJIGS FOUNDATION: $6k → 15%ROSICRUCIAN ORDER AMORC: $500k → 8%AMSKILLS APPRENTICESHIP FOUNDATION: $6k → 11%FLORIDA SUNCOAST MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION: $6k → 12%SOCIETY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS: $3k → 21%SPARK FORCE: $5k → 8%ROSICRUCIAN ORDER AMORC: $250k → 8%AMSKILLS APPRENTICESHIP F: $5k → 11%CHI CHI RODRIGUEZ FOUNDATION: $10k → 12%NUTS BOLTS & THINGAMAJIGS FOUNDATION: $3k → 8%FONDAZION ANTICO EMISTICO ORDINE: $200k → 8%AMSKILLS APPRENTICESHIP FOUNDATION: $3k → 11%SUPREME GRAND LODGE OF AMORC: $150k → 8%AMSKILLS APPRENTICESHIP FOUNDATION: $3k → 11%FONDAZION ANTICO EMISTICO ORDINE: $150k → 8%SUPREME GRAND LODGE OF AMORC: $50k → 8%FONDAZION ANTICO EMISTICO ORDINE: $50k → 8%ROSICRUCIAN ORDER AMORC: $25k → 8%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.

36%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$6.4M · 10 repeat orgs$11M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +4957% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
6

Total granted

$6.4M
$5.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+4957%
0%

Still filing today

20%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.6M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • SG
    SUPREME GRAND LODGE OF AMORC
    4× · 2018–2021 · $3.5M
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    4× · 2019–2022 · $2.3M
  • FA
    FONDAZION ANTICO EMISTICO ORDINE
    3× · 2019–2021 · $400k

Funded once

  • GL
    GRAND LODGE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE JURISDICTION OF THE AMORC
    one grant, 2024 · $5.0M · revenue 0% · 51% of their budget
  • AS
    AMORC SERVICES LTD
    one grant, 2021 · $200k
  • DR
    DOMAINE ROSICRUCIEN DE LACHUTE
    one grant, 2021 · $100k
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

4 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. 4 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/4
Grantees still filing
2/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GRAND LODGE OF THE ENGLIS: $5,500,000 · OtherGRAND LODGE OF THE ENGLISGRAND LODGE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE JURISDICTION OF THE AMORC: $5,000,000 · OtherGRAND LODGE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE JURISDICTION OF THE AMORCSUPREME GRAND LODGE OF AMORC: $3,500,000 · OtherSUPREME GRAND LODGE OF AMORCIndividual grant recipient: $2,275,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+16 more: $1,164,569 · Other+16 moreAmSkills Inc: $41,682 · EducationSPARKFORCE: $28,850 · Education
Other$17,439,569Education$70,532

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGRAND LODGE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE JURISDICTION OF THE AMORC: $5,000,000 over 1y, 51% of budgetAmSkills Inc: $41,682 over 7y, 25% of budgetSPARKFORCE: $28,850 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetChi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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 GRAND LODGE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE JURISDICTION OF THE AMORC ↗
  • Who funds AmSkills Inc ↗
  • Who funds SPARKFORCE ↗
  • Who funds Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Shaluly Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Shaluly Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • AmSkills Inc: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
1report 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 Shaluly Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Shaluly Foundation Inc 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 Shaluly’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