Skip to content

· Private foundation

The David M Gabrielsen 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.

$105k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Arts & Culture$117kEnvironment$96kEducation$86kHuman Services$57kInternational$45kRecreation & Sports$35kPhilanthropy$12kEmployment$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $95k
$10,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$837k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOLDORG$30,000
THE MUSIC SETTLEMENT$20,000
RAINEY INSTITUTE$15,000
HIRAM HOUSE CAMP$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
ROAD WORTHY$10,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
Individual grant recipient$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 (FY17–20, $23k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MARY PARISH CENTER: $15k → 14%MARY PARISH CENTER: $5k → 14%MARY PARISH CENTER: $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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
MA
OH
CA
CO
KY
TN
NC
DC
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 9% of The David M Gabrielsen Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The David M Gabrielsen Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
$428k · 12 repeat orgs$98k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +35% since the first grant, against +22% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
12

Total granted

$428k
$68k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+22%

Still filing today

58%
58%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k 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
Arts & CultureEducationPhilanthropyHuman ServicesEnvironmentFood & 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

  • TW
    THE WALDEN WOODS PROJECT
    6× · 2017–2023 · $86k · revenue +236%
  • TC
    THE CLEVELAND MUSIC SCHOOL SETTLEMENT
    3× · 2023–2025 · $50k · revenue +74%
  • TM
    THE MARY PARRISH CENTER
    3× · 2017–2020 · $23k · revenue +319%

Funded once

  • TR
    THE RED SOX FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2019 · $12k · revenue +22%
  • MF
    MIKEROWEWORKS FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue 0%
  • OI
    OCEANA INC
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -28%
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
John Carroll University

As a jesuit catholic university committed to academic rigor, inclusive excellence, and care for the whole person, john carroll university inspires individuals of intellect and character to learn, lead and serve in the community and…

Education
2
Hathaway Brown School

The school is dedicated to excellence in the education of girls. our true mission, as reflected in our motto "non scholae sed vitae discimus," is learning & preparation for life.

Education
3
Webster University

Founded in 1915, webster is a private non-profit and global university that is committed to delivering high-quality learning experiences that transform students for global citizenship and individual excellence.

Education
4
Wilson College

Wilson college empowers students to be confident and critical thinkers, creative visionaries, effective communicators, honorable leaders, and agents of justice.

Education
5
The Central European University

Ceu is committed to promoting the values of open society and self-reflective critical thinking. it aims at excellence in the mastery of established knowledge, courage to pursue the creation of new knowledge in the humanities, the social…

International
6
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…

Community Improvement
7
Cleveland Institute of Music

The cleveland institute of music's mission is to empower the world's most talented classical music students to fulfill their dreams and potential.

Education
8
The Lieber Institute Inc

The mission of the institute is to translate basic genetic and molecular mechanisms of schizophrenia and related developmental brain disorders into clinical advances that change the lives of affected individuals. it is catalyzing a new…

Health
9
University of Miami

See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.

Education
10
Western New England University

Western new england university, a comprehensive private institution with a tradition of excellence in teaching and scholarship and a commitment to service, awards undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in various departments from…

Education
11
Bentley University

Organization's mission bentley university believes good business can impact more than the bottom line - it can change the world. bentley is a community of future business leaders who will deliver value in the marketplace and lasting…

Education
12
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Urban Community School; the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

14 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. 14 of the 28 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)
14/14
Grantees still filing
10/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ELEANOR B RAINEY MEMORIAL INSTITUTE: $67,000 · OtherELEANOR B RAINEY MEMORIAL INSTITUTEBOLDORG: $60,000 · OtherBOLDORGRURAL WATER VENTURES INC: $45,000 · OtherRURAL WATER VENTURES INCCLAYTON HIGH SCHOOL: $30,000 · OtherCLAYTON HIGH SCHOOLHIRAM HOUSE CAMP: $25,000 · OtherHIRAM HOUSE CAMPSTRIVE FOR COLLEGE DBA USTRIVEORG: $20,000 · OtherSTRIVE FOR COLLEGE DBA USTRIVEORGSCHODACK SCHOOLS - BOB MORGAN SCHOLARSHIP: $12,000 · Other+13 more: $60,050 · Other+13 moreTHE WALDEN WOODS PROJECT: $86,000 · Arts & CultureTHE WALDEN WOODS PROJECTTHE CLEVELAND MUSIC SCHOOL SETTLEMENT: $50,000 · Arts & CultureTHE CLEVELAND MUSIC SCHOOL SE…THE MARY PARRISH CENTER: $22,500 · Human ServicesTHE RED SOX FOUNDATION INC: $11,955 · PhilanthropyMIKEROWEWORKS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · PhilanthropyOCEANA INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentFLYING HORSE FARMS: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsGREATER CLEVELAND FOOD BANK INC: $6,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$319,050Arts & Culture$136,000Human Services$22,500Philanthropy$21,955Environment$10,000Recreation & Sports$10,000Food & Nutrition$6,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE WALDEN WOODS PROJECT: $86,000 over 6y, 1.5% of budgetELEANOR B RAINEY MEMORIAL INSTITUTE: $67,000 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetTHE CLEVELAND MUSIC SCHOOL SETTLEMENT: $50,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetRURAL WATER VENTURES INC: $45,000 over 5y, 19% of budgetTHE MARY PARRISH CENTER: $22,500 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetTHE RED SOX FOUNDATION INC: $11,955 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMIKEROWEWORKS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetOCEANA INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFLYING HORSE FARMS: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetURBAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL: $6,650 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER CLEVELAND FOOD BANK INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSIENA UNIVERSITY: $4,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCLEVELAND KIDS' BOOK BANK: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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 WALDEN WOODS PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds ELEANOR B RAINEY MEMORIAL INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds THE CLEVELAND MUSIC SCHOOL SETTLEMENT ↗
  • Who funds RURAL WATER VENTURES INC ↗
  • Who funds THE MARY PARRISH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds THE RED SOX FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds MIKEROWEWORKS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OCEANA INC ↗
  • Who funds FLYING HORSE FARMS ↗
  • Who funds URBAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds GREATER CLEVELAND FOOD BANK INC ↗
  • Who funds SIENA UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds CLEVELAND KIDS' BOOK BANK ↗
  • Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 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.

American Online Giving Foundation IncDE6.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving 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 The David M Gabrielsen Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The David M Gabrielsen Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 6%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
  • The Walden Woods Project: 6% of income from government
  • The Red Sox Foundation Inc: 2% of 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 · 0–90%
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 28 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 David M Gabrielsen’s filings →

More from the funding graph