· Private foundation
The Danna Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k5 grants · $23k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $41k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $85k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LUCKY DUCK FOUNDATION | $85,000 |
| PROJECT ACCESS | $26,200 |
| ALPHA PROJECT | $15,000 |
| VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA | $7,500 |
| UTAH VETERANS ALLIANCE | $5,000 |
| NEIGHBORWORKS | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,850 |
| THE BURN INSTITUTE | $1,500 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 66% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +37% since the first grant, against -15% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- LDLUCKY DUCK FOUNDATION5× · 2020–2024 · $350k · revenue +37%
- PAProject Access Inc8× · 2017–2024 · $289k · revenue +186%
- APALPHA PROJECT FOR THE HOMELESS6× · 2019–2024 · $204k · revenue +112%
Funded once
- YYIGBYone grant, 2021 · $70k
- WOWHEELS OF CHANGEone grant, 2019 · $25k
- BCBRENT & CHERI ANDRUS CHARITABLE TRUSTone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue -16%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Treating substance use disorders, rebuilding lives, strengthening families, and empowering women.
We help families experiencing homelessness find lasting independence and security.
RTFH exists to reduce and end homelessness in San Diego, ensuring that if this situation does happen for anyone, it remains a rare, brief and non-recurring instance; not an outcome.
To provide programs to assist homeless veterans and veterans at risk of becoming homeless with personal skills, training and employment.
The mission of the organization is to ensure safety and stability for people who are battered, abused, homeless or at risk; to create public awareness about the epidemic of violence; and to mobilize the community to prevent violence and…
IH's programs are grounded in the core components of food, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, and rapid re-housing/ homelessness prevention services. Core programming is enriched with wraparound supportive…
The primary purpose of Trauma-Informed Utah is to respond to requests for education, resources and training around implementing a Trauma-Informed approach within their organization. The focus includes any and all sectors of society seeking…
We advocate for human rights humane immigration reform and social justice. Our efforts aim to reduce fatalities along the US-Mexico border by educating and assisting communities on both sides. Our services include educational programs…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Community Foundation of Utah and the most unlike its peers is Brent & Cheri Andrus Charitable Trust. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 20 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 33 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds LUCKY DUCK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Project Access Inc ↗
- Who funds ALPHA PROJECT FOR THE HOMELESS ↗
- Who funds Burn Institute ↗
- Who funds The Rachel Covey Foundation ↗
- Who funds Interfaith Community Services Inc ↗
- Who funds BRENT & CHERI ANDRUS CHARITABLE TRUST ↗
- Who funds The Community Foundation of Utah ↗
- Who funds UTAH VETERANS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds MONARCH SCHOOL PROJECT ↗
- Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
- Who funds VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA UTAH ↗
- Who funds MVW RELIEF FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Tifie Humanitarian ↗
- Who funds UTAH FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA FIRE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Sylvia Earle AllianceMission Blue ↗
- Who funds SPECTRUM MINISTRIES ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Sempra Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Danna Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Danna Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Danna 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.