Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Wagner Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$257k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$126k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$1.0MHealth$206kRecreation & Sports$144kReligion$60kAnimals$3kCommunity Improvement$1kArts & Culture$700
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $2k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $254k
$1,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$5.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$126,470
Individual grant recipient$78,000
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION$50,000
BIGFORK ROTARY FOUNDATION INC$1,000
DESERT SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION - ARNOLD PALMER EDUCATION FUND$500
HOPEKIDS - SADDLE UP FOR HOPE$450
LOGAN HEALTH$200
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%HOPEKIDS - SADDLE UP FOR HOPE: $450 → 11%LOGAN HEALTH: $200 → 11%BIGFORK YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION: $15k → 18%JULI INKSTER FOUNDATION: $500 → 8%SAFARI WEST WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $3k → 9%EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $50k → 11%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $250k → 12%OUR LADY OF THE BRIGHT MOUNTAIN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH: $35k → 14%COMMUNITY CANCER FUND OF THE INLAND NORTHWEST: $5k → 12%LOGAN HEALTH: $200 → 11%BIGFORK ROTARY FOUNDATION INC: $1k → 18%TRADITIONS ARNOLD PALMER EDUCATION FUND1: $15k → 11%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $163k → 12%OUR LADY OF THE BRIGHT MOUNT: $25k → 14%LOGAN HEALTH: $125 → 11%BIGFORK ART CULTURAL CENTER - GINGERBREAD SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $100 → 18%EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $50k → 11%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $160k → 12%DESERT SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION - ARNOLD PALMER EDUCATION FUND: $10k → 11%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $126k → 12%EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $50k → 11%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $106k → 12%DESERT SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION - ARNOLD PALMER EDUCATION FUND: $500 → 11%CAL POLY ATHLETICS: $78k → 12%EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $50k → 11%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $75k → 12%OLD TOWN ARTISAN STUDIOS: $600 → 11%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $53k → 12%CAL POLY ATHLETICS: $50k → 12%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 12%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 12%CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $5k → 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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 5 repeat orgs$101k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +2690% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
9

Total granted

$1.3M
$99k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+2690%
0%

Still filing today

40%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’20’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’20’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationArts & CultureRecreation & SportsAnimalsOther
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

  • CP
    CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    6× · 2017–2025 · $989k · revenue -4%
  • EM
    EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION
    4× · 2022–2025 · $200k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2024–2025 · $128k

Funded once

  • OL
    OUR LADY OF THE BRIGHT MOUNTAIN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
    one grant, 2022 · $35k
  • OL
    OUR LADY OF THE BRIGHT MOUNT
    one grant, 2020 · $25k
  • BY
    BIGFORK YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2024 · $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
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 16 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
2/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $988,698 · EducationCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONEISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $200,000 · OtherEISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATI…Individual grant recipient: $128,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientOUR LADY OF THE BRIGHT MOUNTAIN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH: $35,000 · OtherOUR LADY OF THE BRIGHT MOUNTAIN RO…OUR LADY OF THE BRIGHT MOUNT: $25,000 · OtherOUR LADY OF THE BRIGHT MOUNTBIGFORK YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION: $15,000 · OtherTRADITIONS ARNOLD PALMER EDUCATION FUND1: $15,000 · Other+4 more: $16,600 · OtherSAFARI WEST WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $3,000 · AnimalsLOGAN HEALTH: $525 · HealthHOPEKIDS INC: $450 · HealthOLD TOWN ARTISAN STUDIO INC: $600 · Arts & CultureJULI INKSTER FOUNDATION: $500 · Recreation & Sports
Education$988,698Other$434,600Animals$3,000Health$975Arts & Culture$600Recreation & Sports$500

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 budgetCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $988,698 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetSAFARI WEST WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetOLD TOWN ARTISAN STUDIO INC: $600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLOGAN HEALTH: $525 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetJULI INKSTER FOUNDATION: $500 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetHOPEKIDS INC: $450 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.

  • Who funds CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SAFARI WEST WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OLD TOWN ARTISAN STUDIO INC ↗
  • Who funds LOGAN HEALTH ↗
  • Who funds JULI INKSTER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds HOPEKIDS INC ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Wagner Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Wagner 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    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 16 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 Wagner’s filings →

    More from the funding graph