Skip to content
The Kathryn and Daniel Sullivan Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Kathryn and Daniel Sullivan 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.

$75k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$25k
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.

Animals$1.0MCrime & Legal$419kYouth Development$260kEducation$260kHealth$165kPhilanthropy$42kArts & Culture$2kFood & Nutrition$500
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $2k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $73k
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS$25,000
GIRL SCOUTS SAN DIEGO -IMPERIAL COUNCIL INC$25,000
VOICES FOR CHILDREN CA$22,500
SCRIPPS PERFORMING ARTS INC$2,000
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 (FY18–18, $500) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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%OLIVEWOOD GARDENS AND LEARNING CENTER: $500 → 11%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.
$2.2M · 9 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
3

Total granted

$2.2M
$8k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+208%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
EducationHealthPhilanthropyCivil RightsYouth DevelopmentAnimalsOther
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

  • DF
    Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Inc
    8× · 2017–2024 · $916k · revenue +98%
  • VF
    VOICES FOR CHILDREN
    9× · 2017–2025 · $419k · revenue +44%
  • GS
    GIRL SCOUTS SAN DIEGO-IMPERIAL COUNCIL INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $260k · revenue +14%

Funded once

  • THE TRUSTEES OF MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue -18%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA
    one grant, 2018 · $2k
  • OG
    OLIVEWOODS GARDENS & LEARNING CENTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $500 · revenue +208%
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
University of Southern California

The central mission of the university of southern california is the development of human beings and society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit. the principal means by which our mission is…

Education
2
San Diego Historical Society

The mission of the san diego history center is to preserve our region's history - tell the diverse story of our region's past, present, and future; educate and enrich our community; and foster civic pride.

—
3
Southern California University of Health Sciences

The mission of southern california university of health sciences (scu) is to educate students as competent, caring and successful practitioners of integrative healthcare. the university is committed to providing excellence in academics,…

Education
4
Nature Collective

Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…

Environment
5
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
6
Connect Foundation

Connect is an innovation instigator established to cultivate san diego's life science and tech communities. a trusted partner for more than 30 years, we propel our region's entrepreneurs as they create and scale their companies from…

Education
7
Pomona College

Throughout its history, pomona college has educated men and women of exceptional promise. we gather individuals, regardless of financial circumstances, into a small residential community that is strongly rooted in southern california yet…

Education
8
Girl Scouts of Greater Los Angeles

Girl scouts' mission is to build girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place. girl scouts of greater los angeles ("gsgla the "council "girl scouts"), the largest girl-serving nonprofit in southern…

Youth Development
9
Lewis & Clark College

Lewis & clark is a premier private higher education institution offering an exceptional education in an inclusive environment. by fostering critical thinking, innovation, creativity, civic engagement, and leadership, both inside and…

Education
10
San Diego County Citizens' Scholars Foundation
—
11
San Diego Coasters
Arts & Culture
12
Chile-California Council

The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Girl Scouts San Diego-Imperial Council Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Trustees of Mount Holyoke College. 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

13 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. 13 of the 14 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)
13/13
Grantees still filing
9/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Inc: $915,700 · OtherDian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Inc+3 more: $4,500 · OtherVOICES FOR CHILDREN: $418,750 · Civil RightsVOICES FOR CHILDRENGIRL SCOUTS SAN DIEGO-IMPERIAL COUNCIL INC: $260,000 · Youth DevelopmentGIRL SCOUTS S…SAN DIEGO PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $245,000 · EducationSAN DIEGO PUB…+2 more: $12,500 · EducationCENTER FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS: $112,250 · HealthSCRIPPS HEALTH: $47,500 · HealthZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO: $127,500 · AnimalsFOCUSING PHILANTHROPY INC: $42,000 · PhilanthropyRADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION SAN DIEGO: $5,000 · Philanthropy
Other$920,200Civil Rights$418,750Youth Development$260,000Education$257,500Health$159,750Animals$127,500Philanthropy$47,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Inc: $915,700 over 8y, 2.6% of budgetVOICES FOR CHILDREN: $418,750 over 9y, 1.5% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS SAN DIEGO-IMPERIAL COUNCIL INC: $260,000 over 8y, 0.5% of budgetSAN DIEGO PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $245,000 over 7y, 1.7% of budgetZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO: $127,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS: $112,250 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetSCRIPPS HEALTH: $47,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetFOCUSING PHILANTHROPY INC: $42,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CAMPANILE FOUNDATION: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION SAN DIEGO: $5,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOLIVEWOODS GARDENS & LEARNING CENTER INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Cushman FoundationThe Conrad Prebys Fou…The Nordson Corporati…The San Diego Foundat…National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Cushman FoundationCA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Cushman Foundation · The Conrad Prebys Foundation · The Nordson Corporation Foundation · The San Diego Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Kathryn and Daniel Sullivan Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Kathryn and Daniel Sullivan Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • The Trustees of Mount Holyoke College: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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 14 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 Kathryn and Daniel Sullivan’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