Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Gamboa-Kwitek 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.

$92k
Granted FY2023
8
Grants FY2023
3
States reached
$23k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of The Gamboa-Kwitek Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to The Rotary Foundation Of Rotary International, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year The Gamboa-Kwitek Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 6 organizations, $92k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

6
’22
6
’23
2
’24
0
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

International$50kReligion$37kHuman Services$24kPublic Safety & Disaster$19kAnimals$16kEnvironment$10kFood & Nutrition$10kHealth$9k
02FY2023 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k4 grants · $29k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $63k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$767k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ST THOMAS OF CANTERBURY$23,000
SOCIETY OF VENCENT DE PAUL$15,000
THE ANTI-CRUELTY SOCIETY$15,000
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES$10,000
CARE FOR REAL$9,000
ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITA$8,000
WATER 4 MURCY$8,000
MUNDELEIN SEMINARY$4,000
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 (FY22–24, $34k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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%SOCIETY OF VENCENT DE PAUL: $15k → 16%CARE FOR REAL: $9k → 14%SOCIETY OF VENCENT DE PAUL: $8k → 16%SOCIETY OF VENCENT DE PAUL: $1k → 16%CARE FOR REAL: $500 → 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.
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.
$125k · 8 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2023, 0 since wound down. Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
0

Total granted

$125k
$0

Still filing today

63%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’22’23’24
Human ServicesAnimalsHealthOther
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

  • SO
    Society of St Vincent De Paul
    3× · 2022–2024 · $24k · revenue +12%
  • TA
    The Anti-Cruelty Society
    2× · 2022–2023 · $16k · revenue +3%
  • W4
    WATER 4 MERCY INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $10k · revenue +4%

Funded once

    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. 6 of the 9 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)
    0
    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

    ST THOMAS OF CANTERBURY: $24,000 · OtherST THOMAS OF CANTERBURYCATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES: $19,480 · OtherCATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICESST MARY OF THE LAKE SEMINARY: $13,480 · OtherST MARY OF THE LAKE SEMINARYWATER 4 MERCY INC: $10,000 · OtherWATER 4 MERCY INCTHE ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $50,000 · InternationalTHE ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY …Society of St Vincent De Paul: $24,480 · Human ServicesSociety of St Vincent…CARE FOR REAL: $9,500 · Human ServicesCARE FOR REALThe Anti-Cruelty Society: $15,500 · AnimalsThe Anti-C…ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $9,000 · Health
    Other$66,960International$50,000Human Services$33,980Animals$15,500Health$9,000

    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 ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSociety of St Vincent De Paul: $24,480 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetThe Anti-Cruelty Society: $15,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWATER 4 MERCY INC: $10,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetCARE FOR REAL: $9,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $9,000 over 2y, 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.

    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 FoundationWA3.3× 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 The Gamboa-Kwitek Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Gamboa-Kwitek Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      1get no government money at all
      2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
      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 9 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Gamboa-Kwitek’s filings →

      More from the funding graph