Skip to content
The Tampico Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Tampico 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.

$4k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$3k
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.

Health$86kReligion$73kPhilanthropy$31kHuman Services$24kInternational$21kCommunity Improvement$15kPublic Safety & Disaster$11kYouth Development$9kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$4k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Breakthrough Urban Ministries$2,500
Food for the Poor$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.

US giving: 86% of grant dollars ($236k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 14% that went abroad ($40k) is mapped below.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY19–19, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, 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%FAMILY SUPPORT NETWORK OF CENTRAL CAROLINA: $1k → 16%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
MA
CA
MO
KY
VA
TN
NC
FL

Beyond the US: 14% of all-years giving ($40k)

2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
Guatemala$25k · 2 grants
Haiti$15k · 1 grant
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 10% of The Tampico Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The Tampico Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 23% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

39%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$106k · 7 repeat orgs$168k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +95% since the first grant, against +28% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 1 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

7
16

Total granted

$106k
$167k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+95%
+28%

Still filing today

57%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
InternationalPhilanthropyPublic Safety & DisasterHealthEducationHuman ServicesOther
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

  • BU
    BREAKTHROUGH URBAN MINISTRIES INC
    7× · 2017–2025 · $45k · revenue +207%
  • BR
    BRAIN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
    3× · 2017–2019 · $13k · revenue +32%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BOWLING GREEN AREA INC
    6× · 2017–2023 · $9k · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • PC
    PADRES CONTRA EL CANCER
    one grant, 2017 · $69k
  • CP
    COCA-COLA PUERTO RICO BOTTLERS
    one grant, 2019 · $20k
  • GT
    GIVE THE KIDS THE WORLD VILLAGE
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
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
Crisis Response International

To resource, train, and mobilize volunteers, churches,& other organizations to respond to disasters in the united states & world-wide

Public Safety & Disaster
2
Rise Against Hunger Inc

Rise against hunger, inc. is an international hunger relief non-profit organization that is driven by a vision of a world without hunger and a mission to end hunger in our lifetime. rise against hunger distributes food and other…

International
3
Chicago Refugee Coalition

The Chicago Refugee Coalition is a 501c3 non-profit organization dedicated ot the alleviation of human suffering through innovative partnerships, advocacy and community empowerment.

Human Services
4
Onechild Global

One child global's mission is to advocate for children in hard places and provide holistic care so they have hope and thrive. onechild global's 355 hope centers provide holistic child development progress in nineteen countries.

International
5
Global Partners in Care

The organization's mission is to build partnerships to enhance compassionate care globally. we are dedicated to improving access to hospice and palliative care worldwide.

International
6
Devworks International

Devworks international is dedicated to a society where all people enjoy the freedom to pursue their own sustainable development. we contribute to this by strengthening the capacity of local organizations.

Human Services
7
Nourishing Hope

Nourishing hope provides food, mental health support, and social services to help all our neighbors thrive.

—
8
A Better Chicago

A better chicago is changing how chicago fights poverty by investing in bold ideas that create opportunity for our youth.

Human Services
9
Respond Now

Respond now connects those in need with health, hunger, and housing services in the chicago southland.

Human Services
10
Strategic Global Response

Strategic Global Response effectively and efficiently delivers life-saving care to people affected by humanitarian crises, in the most challenging situations on earth

Human Services
11
The Arc Baltimore Inc

The arc baltimore supports people with developmental disabilities to lead fulfilling lives with a sense of belonging, purpose, and meaningful relationships.

Human Services
12
Relief International Inc

Relief international (ri) partners with communities impacted by conflict, climate change, and disaster to save lives, build greater resilience, and promote long-term health and wellbeing of people in the communities that we serve. relief…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Convoy of Hope; the most unlike its peers is International Rescue Committee Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

16 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. 16 of the 25 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/16
Grantees still filing
13/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PADRES CONTRA EL CANCER: $68,653 · OtherPADRES CONTRA EL CANCERBREAKTHROUGH URBAN MINISTRIES INC: $45,000 · OtherBREAKTHROUGH URBAN MINISTRIES INCFUNDACION CASTILLO CORDOVA: $25,000 · OtherFUNDACION CASTILLO CORDOVACOCA-COLA PUERTO RICO BOTTLERS: $20,000 · OtherCOCA-COLA PUERTO RICO BOTTLERSGIVE THE KIDS THE WORLD VILLAGE: $15,000 · OtherGIVE THE KIDS THE WORLD VILLAGEPRODEV USA FOUNDATION: $15,000 · OtherPRODEV USA FOUNDATIONTHE CHILDREN'S PLACE ASSOCIATION: $10,000 · OtherROTARY FOUNDATION DAF: $10,000 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BOWLING GREEN AREA INC: $8,800 · OtherGIVE 2 GET: $8,500 · Other+3 more: $9,500 · OtherBRAIN RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $12,500 · HealthPitch In: $10,000 · PhilanthropyVOLUNTEER FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 · PhilanthropyInternational Rescue Committee INC: $2,500 · InternationalCONVOY OF HOPE: $2,500 · InternationalFOOD FOR THE POOR INC: $1,000 · InternationalGOOD360: $1,000 · InternationalTEAM RUBICON INC: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC: $1,000 · Public Safety & DisasterMUNDO INC: $3,000 · ReligionTHE CHICAGO SCHOLARS FOUNDATION: $3,000 · EducationFAMILY SUPPORT NETWORK OF CENTRAL CAROLINA: $1,000 · Human Services
Other$235,453Health$12,500Philanthropy$11,000International$7,000Public Safety & Disaster$3,500Religion$3,000Education$3,000Human Services$1,000

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 budgetBREAKTHROUGH URBAN MINISTRIES INC: $45,000 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetBRAIN RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $12,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetPitch In: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BOWLING GREEN AREA INC: $8,800 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetHOSPICE OF SOUTHERN KENTUCKY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetARDEN SHORE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CHICAGO SCHOLARS FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCONVOY OF HOPE: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTEAM RUBICON INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVOLUNTEER FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY SUPPORT NETWORK OF CENTRAL CAROLINA: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetGOOD360: $1,000 over 1y, 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Pfizer Foundation…The Bank of America C…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Pfizer Foundation IncNY10.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Pfizer Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation 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 Tampico Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Tampico 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Volunteer Florida Foundation Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Food for the Poor Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
4report 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 25 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 Tampico’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