Skip to content
The Pioneer Fund at a glance

· Private foundation

The Pioneer Fund

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.

$32k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$18k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Recreation & Sports$158kInternational$58kEducation$19kReligion$8kCommunity Improvement$5kYouth Development$5kHuman Services$3kArts & Culture$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $4k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $28k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$23k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BELIZE EDUCATION PROJECT$18,200
Individual grant recipient$10,000
UCLA FOUNDATION$2,500
BASICS TEAM FOUNDATION$1,000
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 (FY20–23, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 26% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%RED ROAD: $5k → 10%SAFEHOUSE DENVER: $3k → 12%THE RED ROAD INC: $2k → 4%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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$186k · 6 repeat orgs$79k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
10

Total granted

$186k
$69k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+8%

Still filing today

83%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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 ServicesEducationRecreation & SportsReligionOther
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

  • HS
    HELMAR SKATING FUND
    2× · 2022–2024 · $135k · revenue -20% · 100% of their budget
  • BE
    BELIZE EDUCATION PROJECT
    3× · 2023–2025 · $22k · revenue 0%
  • GE
    GENTRYS EDUCATION CENTER AT THE STORE FRONT INC
    3× · 2020–2023 · $11k · revenue +77%

Funded once

  • BE
    BELIZE EDUCATIONAL PROJECT
    one grant, 2020 · $36k
  • PS
    PHILADELPHIA SKATING CLUB
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $5k
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
Pikes Peak Athletic Foundation
Recreation & Sports
2
T2 Foundation

To provide funds to cover expenses and subsidize costs of training & development for qualified athletes participating in Olympic sports, including Alpine, cross-country, freestyle, or freeskiing disciplines.

—
3
Silverfork Skimo Foundation

None

Recreation & Sports
4
The Elway Foundation
—
5
Athletes of Promise Foundation
Youth Development
6
Evans Scholars Foundation - Colorado

Educational

Education
7
Be You

Underserved student ages 4-24 coaching, mentoring and life skills

—
8
Uncommon Individual Foundation
—
9
Kris Perani Hockey Foundation

Community sponsor for youth athletics

Human Services
10
Doing Good Works Foundation

Tutoring at risk youth

Community Improvement
11
Sandra Gal Foundation Inc

To provide the best support for a young athlete to be able to pursue their dreams as well as be a balanced, confident and happy individual.

Youth Development
12
Scotty Lapp Foundation

Charity volunteer organization focused on providing access to skiing, snowboarding and skateboarding for underserved youth to reach their full potential. We are building community skateparks to provide recreational access and we provide…

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Gentrys Education Center At the Store Front Inc; the most unlike its peers is Helmar Skating Fund. 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

11 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. 11 of the 18 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HELMAR SKATING FUND: $135,000 · OtherHELMAR SKATING FUNDBELIZE EDUCATIONAL PROJECT: $36,000 · OtherBELIZE EDUCATIONAL PROJECTPHILADELPHIA SKATING CLUB: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · Other+5 more: $21,500 · Other+5 moreBELIZE EDUCATION PROJECT: $22,200 · EducationBELIZE EDUCATION PR…GENTRYS EDUCATION CENTER AT THE STORE FRONT INC: $11,000 · EducationGENTRYS EDUCATION C…UCLA FOUNDATION: $7,500 · EducationUCLA FOUNDATIONBASICS Team Foundation Inc: $5,000 · EducationBASICS Team Foundat…The Red Road Inc: $7,000 · Human ServicesSAFEHOUSE DENVER INC: $2,500 · Human ServicesPORTERS CALL: $2,000 · Human ServicesSportswomen of Colorado Inc: $1,500 · Recreation & SportsOPERATION ANDREW GROUP INC: $1,000 · Religion
Other$212,500Education$45,700Human Services$11,500Recreation & Sports$1,500Religion$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHELMAR SKATING FUND: $135,000 over 2y, 100% of budgetBELIZE EDUCATION PROJECT: $22,200 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetGENTRYS EDUCATION CENTER AT THE STORE FRONT INC: $11,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetUCLA FOUNDATION: $7,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetThe Red Road Inc: $7,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetBASICS Team Foundation Inc: $5,000 over 5y, 6.9% of budgetPROFESSIONAL SKATERS FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 9.7% of budgetSAFEHOUSE DENVER INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPORTERS CALL: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSportswomen of Colorado Inc: $1,500 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetOPERATION ANDREW GROUP INC: $1,000 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 Community Foundat…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee IncTN12.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee Inc · 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 Pioneer Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Pioneer Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 18 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 Pioneer’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