Skip to content
The Arp Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Arp Family Foundation

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.

$1.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1.6M
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.

Recreation & Sports$1.9MAnimals$53kEducation$32kHuman Services$13kEnvironment$12kArts & Culture$6kPhilanthropy$2kYouth Development$1k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,601,768
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UC Davis Team Aggie$1,601,768
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 (FY17–17, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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%FREEDOM SERVICE DOGS INC: $1k → 15%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 22 repeat orgs$30k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against +22% for those funded once.

22 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 21 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
20

Total granted

$2.0M
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
+22%

Still filing today

45%
35%

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
AnimalsRecreation & SportsEnvironmentEducationHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • SF
    SIERRA FOOTHILLS LITTLE LEAGUE
    6× · 2017–2022 · $18k · revenue +26%
  • GC
    Gold Country Wildlife Rescue Inc
    6× · 2017–2022 · $13k · revenue +583%
  • MV
    MEADOW VISTA COMMUNITY CENTER
    6× · 2017–2022 · $12k · revenue +247%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $7k
  • SF
    SOCIETY FOR THE BLINDSUMMER YOUTH
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
  • WB
    WC BEAN JR SCHOLARSHIP FUND
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
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
Foothill Dog Rescue of the Sierras

Foothill Dog Rescue is a 100% all volunteer organization dedicated to re-homing dogs from over crowded animal shelters, owner surrenders and underserved communities. We also sponsor vaccine and microchip clinics for our County and have…

Animals
2
Wolfe Ranch Rescue
Animals
3
Northern California Animal Rescue Friends

We work in cooperation with humane organizations shelters and other groups interested in animal rescue. We rescue domestic animals and place them in nurturing foster homes. All animals are evaluated altered and vaccinated prior to…

Animals
4
Forever Wild Wildlife Rescue
Animals
5
Happy Acres Pet Rescue
Animals
6
Saving Sage Animal Rescue Foundation Inc
Animals
7
The Spay and Neuter Intercommunity Project Team Inc

To decrease the euthanasia rates in Central California by providing spay & neuter resources

Animals
8
California Animal Rescue and Education Sanctuary Inc

C.A.R.E.S.MISSION STATEMENT*Rescue, foster and find good homes for abandoned and homeless domestic and farm animals.*Spay/neuter abandoned and homeless cats and dogs, as well as help low income families with same.*Conduct TNR+ programs to…

—
9
Norcal Golden Retriever Rescue Inc

Norcal Golden Retriever Rescue is an all-volunteer organization that has rescued and found permanent, loving homes for Golden Retrievers and Golden Retriever mixes since its inception in 1994. Through the dedicated work of its foster…

Animals
10
Sierra County Humane Society-Desert Haven Animal Refuge

Abused animal care,public education, spay & neuter of animals to prevent unwanted births, providing a pet cemetary for animals.

Animals
11
Mountain View Animal Rescue

Rescue of abused or abandoned animals

Animals
12
High Sierra Animal Rescue Inc

High Sierra Animal Rescues mission is to save the lives of homeless dogs in the regions served. Our staff and volunteers are dedicated to making our communities better through successful adoptions advancing their welfare and creating human…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sierra Foothills Little League; the most unlike its peers is The Falcon Foundation. 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

19 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. 19 of the 43 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/19
Grantees still filing
14/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UC Davis Team Aggie: $1,621,768 · OtherUC Davis Team AggieTeam Aggie Athletic Development: $105,000 · OtherTeam Aggie Athletic Development+30 more: $212,650 · Other+30 moreKINDRED SPIRITS FAWN RESCUE: $10,500 · AnimalsFieldHaven Feline Center: $10,100 · AnimalsANIMALSAVE: $7,250 · AnimalsSAMMIES FRIENDS: $7,250 · AnimalsTHE GENTLE BARN FOUNDATION: $1,250 · AnimalsSIERRA FOOTHILLS LITTLE LEAGUE: $18,000 · Recreation & SportsAUBURN SKI CLUB ASSOCIATES INC: $1,500 · Recreation & SportsPLACER NATURE CENTER: $12,000 · EnvironmentPlacer Community Foundation: $1,500 · PhilanthropyPOSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE: $1,250 · EducationFREEDOM SERVICE DOGS INC: $1,250 · Human Services
Other$1,939,418Animals$36,350Recreation & Sports$19,500Environment$12,000Philanthropy$1,500Education$1,250Human Services$1,250

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 budgetTHE NATIONAL FOOTBALL FOUNDATION & COLLEGE HALL OF FAME INC: $23,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSIERRA FOOTHILLS LITTLE LEAGUE: $18,000 over 6y, 13% of budgetGold Country Wildlife Rescue Inc: $12,500 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetMEADOW VISTA COMMUNITY CENTER: $12,000 over 6y, 6.1% of budgetPLACER NATURE CENTER: $12,000 over 5y, 9.3% of budgetKINDRED SPIRITS FAWN RESCUE: $10,500 over 6y, 4.6% of budgetFieldHaven Feline Center: $10,100 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetANIMALSAVE: $7,250 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetSAMMIES FRIENDS: $7,250 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetPlacer Community Foundation: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAUBURN SKI CLUB ASSOCIATES INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSTRAWBERRY MOUNTAIN MUSTANGS INC: $1,500 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetTHE ARK PRESCHOOL: $1,500 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetPOSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE: $1,250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFREEDOM SERVICE DOGS INC: $1,250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE GENTLE BARN FOUNDATION: $1,250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetADVENTURE RISK CHALLENGE: $1,200 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetDavis Media Access: $1,100 over 1y, 0.3% 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 THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL FOUNDATION & COLLEGE HALL OF FAME INC ↗
  • Who funds SIERRA FOOTHILLS LITTLE LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds Gold Country Wildlife Rescue Inc ↗
  • Who funds MEADOW VISTA COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds PLACER NATURE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds KINDRED SPIRITS FAWN RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds FieldHaven Feline Center ↗
  • Who funds ANIMALSAVE ↗
  • Who funds SAMMIES FRIENDS ↗
  • Who funds THE FALCON FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Placer Community Foundation ↗
  • Who funds AUBURN SKI CLUB ASSOCIATES INC ↗
  • Who funds STRAWBERRY MOUNTAIN MUSTANGS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE ARK PRESCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds POSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds FREEDOM SERVICE DOGS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE GENTLE BARN FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ADVENTURE RISK CHALLENGE ↗
  • Who funds Davis Media Access ↗

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.

Placer Community Foun…Thornton S Jr and Kat…Dieter Family Foundat…John Mohme FoundationArmrod Charitable Fou…Teichert FoundationSacramento Region Com…Baird Foundation IncPaypal Charitable Giv…American Endowment Fo…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…
Placer Community FoundationCA15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Placer Community Foundation · Thornton S Jr and Katrina D Glide Foundation · Dieter Family Foundation · John Mohme Foundation · Armrod Charitable Foundation · Teichert Foundation · Sacramento Region Community Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 The Arp Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Arp Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%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
    1get 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 · 0–5%
    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 43 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 Arp Family’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