Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Komal 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.

$134k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Housing & Shelter$220kFood & Nutrition$215kHuman Services$210kEnvironment$62kPublic Safety & Disaster$62k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $34k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OREGON FOOD BANK$50,000
CENTRAL CITY CONCERN$50,000
NORTH COAST LAND CONSERVANCY$17,000
CANNON BEACH RURAL FIRE PROTECTION$17,000
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 (FY20–21, $65k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%IMPACT NW: $15k → 12%IMPACT NW: $15k → 12%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICE: $20k → 12%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICE: $15k → 12%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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$649k · 10 repeat orgs$120k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
3

Total granted

$649k
$120k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+53%
+418%

Still filing today

70%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterHealthEnvironmentFood & NutritionPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • Central City Concern
    6× · 2020–2025 · $180k · revenue +82%
  • OREGON FOOD BANK
    5× · 2020–2025 · $165k · revenue +7%
  • NC
    North Coast Land Conservancy Inc
    4× · 2020–2025 · $62k · revenue +53%

Funded once

  • CS
    CEDAR SINAI PARK FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue +418%
  • NC
    NW CARES
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
  • ROSE HAVEN CICgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +41%
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
Clatsop Community Action

Clatsop community action, inc. (cca) is an oregon nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist low-income individuals and families meet housing, energy, food and other basic living needs in the clatsop county area of oregon. cca…

—
2
Farmers Ending Hunger

The organization's mission is to increase the quantity of high quality food commodities donated to the oregon food bank network through a partnership of farmers, food processors, the oregon food bank network and the public.

Human Services
3
Columbia Pacific Food Bank

Columbia pacific food bank is the regional food distribution center for columbia county, oregon and local food pantry for the community of saint helens.

Food & Nutrition
4
Port Angeles Food Bank

Nourishing our community. the port angeles food bank is the main food bank in clallam county, providing food to 13 other area pantries and meal programs as well as providing food to over 5,000 individuals per month.

Food & Nutrition
5
Community Sharing Program

Provide South Lane County community members with basic needs resources, life skills, and resources toward self-sufficiency.

Human Services
6
Restoration House Inc

Restoration House provides save, supervised housing for men with significant behavioral health needs, creating a stable environment where structure, accountability, and wraparound services support personal growth and long-term recovery.…

Health
7
Operation Nightwatch - Portland

Operation Nightwatch provides nighttime hospitality for Portland's unhoused population. For a few evenings a week, staff and volunteers at thehospitality center provide a safe place, food, socks, blankets, medical care, and welcome our…

Health
8
United Way of the Columbia-Willamette

At United Way of the Columbia-Willamette (UWCW), we envision an Oregon and Southwest Washington where every child and family - regardless of geography, race, or family incomehas a stable foundation and access to the resources and support…

Philanthropy
9
Here Together

Supports homeless services through high earner tax and business profits. (Portland Metro)

—
10
West Seattle Food Bank

West Seattle Food Bank strengthens the community through the power of neighbors helping neighbors, working to ensure all in our community have access to the essential necessities of living.

Food & Nutrition
11
Community Services Network

The Community Services Network increases education, networking, and collaboration among social service providers, government agencies, and community organizations to reduce silos and strengthen our ability to collectively sere the community

International
12
Mid-Columbia Community Action Council

To alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in Wasco, Hood River, and Sherman Counties. The purpose of MCCAC shall be the promotion of self sufficiency in families and individuals within the low income economic ranges in the three…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Metropolitan Family Service; the most unlike its peers is Cannon Beach Fire & Rescue Association. 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

9 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. 9 of the 13 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OREGON FOOD BANK: $165,000 · OtherOREGON FOOD BANKHELPING HANDS RE-ENTRY: $40,000 · OtherHELPING HANDS RE-ENTRYCANNON BEACH RURAL FIRE PROTECTION: $32,000 · OtherCANNON BEACH RURAL FIRE PROTECTIONBYBEE LAKE HOPE CENTER: $25,000 · OtherBYBEE LAKE HOPE CENTERNW CARES: $10,000 · OtherCentral City Concern: $180,000 · HealthCentral City ConcernCEDAR SINAI PARK FOUNDATION: $100,000 · Housing & ShelterCEDAR SINAI PARK…ROSE HAVEN CIC: $10,000 · Housing & ShelterROSE HAVEN CICMetropolitan Family Service: $35,000 · Human ServicesMetropoli…IMPACT NW: $30,000 · Human ServicesIMPACT NWNorth Coast Land Conservancy Inc: $62,000 · EnvironmentNorth Coa…URBAN GLEANERS: $50,000 · Food & NutritionCANNON BEACH FIRE & RESCUE ASSOCIATION: $30,000 · Public Safety & Disaster
Other$272,000Health$180,000Housing & Shelter$110,000Human Services$65,000Environment$62,000Food & Nutrition$50,000Public Safety & Disaster$30,000

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 budgetCentral City Concern: $180,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetOREGON FOOD BANK: $165,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCEDAR SINAI PARK FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetNorth Coast Land Conservancy Inc: $62,000 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetURBAN GLEANERS: $50,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetMetropolitan Family Service: $35,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetIMPACT NW: $30,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCANNON BEACH FIRE & RESCUE ASSOCIATION: $30,000 over 2y, 36% of budgetROSE HAVEN CIC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 Central City Concern ↗
  • Who funds OREGON FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds CEDAR SINAI PARK FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds North Coast Land Conservancy Inc ↗
  • Who funds URBAN GLEANERS ↗
  • Who funds Metropolitan Family Service ↗
  • Who funds IMPACT NW ↗
  • Who funds CANNON BEACH FIRE & RESCUE ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds ROSE HAVEN CIC ↗

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 Oregon Community FoundationOR15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Oregon Community Foundation · Oregon Jewish Community Foundation · Juan Young Trust · The Autzen Foundation · 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 Komal Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Komal Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 10%
  • Metropolitan Family Service: 29% of income from government
  • Oregon Food Bank: 21% of income from government
  • Central City Concern: 10% of income from government
  • Impact Nw: 8% of income from government
  • North Coast Land Conservancy Inc: 6% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get 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 · 0–50%
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 13 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 Komal’s filings →

More from the funding graph