Skip to content
The Serr Charitable Action Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

The Serr Charitable Action Trust

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.

$4.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$2.5M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

97% of The Serr Charitable Action Trust’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Orange County Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2024, the last year The Serr Charitable Action Trust named its own grantees at scale: 6 organizations, $4M. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

5
’20
6
’21
6
’22
4
’23
6
’24
2
’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, FY2020 to 2025.

Philanthropy$35MArts & Culture$7.0MEnvironment$3.0MHuman Services$100kRecreation & Sports$58k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k4 grants · $550k
  • $250k+3 grants · $3.8M
$200,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$27M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SALT LAKE FILM SOCIETY$2,482,200
ORANGE COUNTY$850,000
UTAH CLEAN ENERGY$500,000
UTAH SYMPHONY UTAH OPERA$200,000
THE GRAND CANYON TRUST$200,000
YWCA OF SALT LAKE CITY$100,000
SCENIC UTAH$50,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 86% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%THE GRAND CANYON TRUST: $250k → 16%ORANGE COUNTY: $850k → 10%SALT LAKE FILM SOCIETY: $2.5M → 8%THE CHICAGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $12.2M → 14%THE GRAND CANYON TRUST: $200k → 16%ORANGE COUNTY: $826k → 10%SALT LAKE FILM SOCIETY: $475k → 8%THE CHICAGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $4.7M → 14%THE GRAND CANYON TRUST: $200k → 16%ORANGE COUNTY: $700k → 10%SALT LAKE FILM SOCIETY: $264k → 8%THE CHICAGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $372k → 14%ORANGE COUNTY: $500k → 10%SALT LAKE FILM SOCIETY: $150k → 8%THE CHICAGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $238k → 14%ORANGE COUNTY: $250k → 10%YWCA OF SALT LAKE CITY: $100k → 8%ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $17.8M → 10%UTAH CLEAN ENERGY: $500k → 8%UTAH CLEAN ENERGY: $500k → 8%UTAH CLEAN ENERGY: $350k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY UTAH OPERA: $250k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY UTAH OPERA: $200k → 8%SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE: $150k → 8%HEAL UTAH: $120k → 8%HEAL UTAH: $120k → 8%UTAH SYMPHONY UTAH OPERA: $50k → 8%SCENIC UTAH: $50k → 8%SCENIC UTAH: $50k → 8%UTAH OPEN LANDS: $225k → 8%UTAH OPEN LANDS: $71k → 8%UTAH OPEN LANDS: $25k → 8%WASATCH MOUNTAIN CLUB FOUNDATION: $58k → 8%UTAH RIVERS COUNCIL: $100k → 8%UTAH RIVERS COUNCIL: $75k → 8%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$27M · 10 repeat orgs$308k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +88% since the first grant, against +43% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call). Read against FY2024, 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

10
2

Total granted

$27M
$208k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+88%
+43%

Still filing today

80%
100%

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
EnvironmentArts & CultureOther
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

  • TS
    THE SALT LAKE FILM SOCIETY
    4× · 2020–2025 · $3.4M · revenue +244% · 42% of their budget
  • TG
    THE GRAND CANYON TRUST INC
    3× · 2020–2024 · $650k · revenue +157%
  • US
    UTAH SYMPHONY & OPERA
    3× · 2022–2025 · $500k · revenue +6%

Funded once

  • SU
    Southern Utah Wilderness Alliancegraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $150k · revenue +43%
  • WM
    WASATCH MOUNTAIN LODGE
    one grant, 2021 · $58k · revenue -94% · 36% of their budget
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
Utah Public Lands Alliance
Education
2
Utah Geological Foundation
—
3
Trails Utah

Trails Utah is dedicated to trails advocacy, planning, funding, and construction in needed areas throughout the state.

Environment
4
Save Our Great Salt Lake
Environment
5
Utah Energy Conservation Coalition Inc
Education
6
Utah Shakespeare Festival Foundation
Arts & Culture
7
Utah Land Use Institute

To assist governmental units, developers and the public with land use issues.

Education
8
Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce

Stimulate local business establishment, growth, and development by facilitating business to business and business to community relationships throughout Utah County.

—
9
Wasatch Wigeons Association

Improve utah's wetlands through hands-on conservation and community engagement

Animals
10
Summit Land Conservancy

Summit land conservancy works with utah communities to conserve land and water for the benefit of the people and nature.

Environment
11
Stewardship Utah Foundation

The mission of the stewardship utah foundation is to advocate for the improvement of the environment in utah.

Human Services
12
Conserve Utah Valley

Conserve utah valley is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization committed to protecting and sustaining the treasured canyons, foothills, open spaces, and waters of utah valley. conserve utah valley seeks to work collaboratively with all levels…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Utah Clean Energy Alliance Inc; the most unlike its peers is Wasatch Mountain Lodge. 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

12 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. 12 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHICAGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $17,459,052 · OtherCHICAGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONORANGE COUNTY: $3,126,000 · OtherORANGE COUNTY+2 more: $158,000 · OtherORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $17,849,979 · PhilanthropyORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONTHE SALT LAKE FILM SOCIETY: $3,371,205 · Arts & CultureTHE SALT …UTAH SYMPHONY & OPERA: $500,000 · Arts & CultureUTAH SYMP…UTAH CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE INC: $1,350,000 · EnvironmentTHE GRAND CANYON TRUST INC: $650,000 · EnvironmentUTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $321,226 · EnvironmentHEALTHY ENVIRONMENT ALLIANCE OF UTAH: $240,000 · EnvironmentUTAH RIVERS COUNCIL INC: $175,000 · EnvironmentSouthern Utah Wilderness Alliance: $150,000 · EnvironmentScenic Utah: $100,000 · Environment
Other$20,743,052Philanthropy$17,849,979Arts & Culture$3,871,205Environment$2,986,226

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 budgetORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $17,849,979 over 1y, 13% of budgetTHE SALT LAKE FILM SOCIETY: $3,371,205 over 4y, 42% of budgetUTAH CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE INC: $1,350,000 over 3y, 10% of budgetTHE GRAND CANYON TRUST INC: $650,000 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetUTAH SYMPHONY & OPERA: $500,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetUTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $321,226 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetHEALTHY ENVIRONMENT ALLIANCE OF UTAH: $240,000 over 2y, 19% of budgetUTAH RIVERS COUNCIL INC: $175,000 over 2y, 21% of budgetSouthern Utah Wilderness Alliance: $150,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetScenic Utah: $100,000 over 2y, 39% of budgetYoung Women's Christian Association of Utah: $100,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetWASATCH MOUNTAIN LODGE: $58,000 over 1y, 36% 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.

Orange County Communi…The Chicago Community…Hemingway FoundationWillard L Eccles Char…Lawrence & Janet Dee …The Community Foundat…David Kelby Johnson M…George S and Dolores …Mightycause Charitabl…Network for GoodAmerican Endowment Fo…Fidelity Investments …
Orange County Community FoundationCA17.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Orange County Community Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Hemingway Foundation · Willard L Eccles Charitable Foundation · Lawrence & Janet Dee Foundation · The Community Foundation of Utah · David Kelby Johnson Memorial Foundation · George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Network for Good · American Endowment Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Serr Charitable Action Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Serr Charitable Action Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Serr Charitable Action’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