Skip to content
Warm Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Warm Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$79k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$33k
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 2024.

Animals$132kHuman Services$120kFood & Nutrition$64kEducation$48kRecreation & Sports$20kArts & Culture$17kPublic Safety & Disaster$7kYouth Development$3k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $64k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$686k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Okandogs$32,500
Leavenworth Seniors Council$11,000
Friends of the Round Valley Public Library$10,000
Upper Valley MEND$10,000
NCW Veterans Serving Veterans$5,000
Round Valley Lions Club$5,000
Bones Pet Rescue$5,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%Friends of the Round Valley Public Library: $15k → 18%Seattle Police Pipes and Drums: $5k → 9%Leavenworth Seniors Council: $25k → 9%Friends of the Round Valley Public Library: $13k → 18%Upper Valley MEND: $20k → 9%Friends of the Round Valley Public Library: $10k → 18%Upper Valley MEND: $14k → 9%Friends of the Round Valley Public Library: $10k → 18%Leavenworth Seniors Council: $11k → 9%Round Valley Lions Club: $10k → 18%Upper Valley MEND: $10k → 9%Bones Pet Rescue: $5k → 18%Leavenworth Seniors Council: $10k → 9%Bones Pet Rescue: $5k → 18%Leavenworth Seniors Council: $9k → 9%Round Valley Lions Club: $5k → 18%Leavenworth Seniors Council: $8k → 9%Friends of the Round Valley Pub Lib: $5k → 18%Leavenworth Seniors Council: $7k → 9%Round Valley Lions Club: $5k → 18%Leavenworth Seniors Council: $6k → 9%Bones Pet Rescue: $5k → 18%Leavenworth Seniors Council: $6k → 9%Friends of the Round Valley Pub Lib: $4k → 18%Upper Valley MEND: $5k → 9%Covelo Volunteer Fire Department: $4k → 18%Upper Valley MEND: $5k → 9%Bones Pet Rescue: $4k → 18%Upper Valley MEND: $5k → 9%Bones Pet Rescue: $3k → 18%Upper Valley MEND: $5k → 9%Covelo Volunteer Fire Department: $3k → 18%Okandogs: $33k → 9%Friends of the Round Valley Pub Lib: $3k → 18%Okandogs: $25k → 9%Okandogs: $20k → 9%The Way to Win Foundation: $3k → 9%Wenatchee Valley Humane Society: $15k → 9%Wenatchee Valley Humane Society: $12k → 9%NCW Veterans Serving Veterans: $10k → 9%NCW Veterans Serving Veterans: $10k → 9%NCW Veterans Serving Veterans: $5k → 9%NCW Veterans Serving Veterans: $5k → 9%Wenatchee Valley Humane Society Inc: $5k → 9%NCW Veterans Serving Veterans: $5k → 9%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$398k · 9 repeat orgs$13k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -7% since the first grant, against -28% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
2

Total granted

$398k
$8k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-7%
-28%

Still filing today

78%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
AnimalsPublic BenefitPhilanthropyArts & 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

  • O
    OKANDOGS
    3× · 2022–2024 · $78k · revenue +46%
  • UV
    UPPER VALLEY MEND
    7× · 2017–2024 · $64k · revenue +403%
  • NV
    NCW VETERANS SERVING VETRANS
    6× · 2017–2024 · $40k · revenue +160%

Funded once

  • SP
    Seattle Police Pipes and Drums
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue -28%
  • TW
    THE WAY TO WIN FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
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
Wallowa County Humane Society

The well-being of companion animals

Animals
2
Washington Humane Society

To provide low cost and free spay and neuter surgeries for cats and dogs

Animals
3
Arrf Animal Rescue

ARRF Animal Rescue is dedicated to the promotion of care and welfare of companion animals in Upper Kittitas County.

Animals
4
Northwest Wag Rescue

NorthWest Wag Rescue is dedicated to representing the rights of animals everywhere. We work tirelessly to get animals out of shelters and dangerous situations and find them loving forever homes in the Pacific NorthWest.

Animals
5
Tillamook Animal Shelter Inc

Boarding stray animals, providing necessary medical care and adopting out the animals to new homes.

Animals
6
Washington-Wilkes Humane Shelter Association Inc

Provide and maintain shelter, food, veterinary care, and spay and neuter services for stray animals, promote pet adoptions, and provide educational service for pet owners.

Animals
7
Sos Lost Pet Rescue Nw Inc

Decrease over population of feral cats by trapping and doing spay or neuter. Provide veterinarian care to kittens. Take owner relinquishments of pets they can no longer care for. Taking in abandoned animals and providing veterinary care.…

Animals
8
Umpqua Valley Humane Society

Prevention of animal cruelty spay & neuter

Animals
9
Woofs and Wags Dog Rescue

Rescue unhoused and unwanted dogs provide medical care temporary foster care and adoption to permenant homes. Provide education and opportunities for low-cost spay neuter programs to the public.

Animals
10
Watonwan Co Humane Society

Primary purpose is to provide food, shelter, compassionate care, and needed veterinary services including spaying and neutering and rehoming and adoption services to lost, abandoned and surrendered animals.

Animals
11
Valley of the Sun Dog Rescue

Rescue Dogs and place them in safe homes

Animals
12
Washington German Shepherd Rescue

Rescue, Rehome, Spay, Neuter of Abandoned Dogs

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of the Round Valley Public Library; the most unlike its peers is Okandogs. 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 12 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LEAVENWORTH SENIORS COUNCIL: $80,250 · OtherLEAVENWORTH SENIORS COUNCILUPPER VALLEY MEND: $64,000 · OtherUPPER VALLEY MENDFRIENDS OF THE ROUND VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY: $60,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF THE ROUND VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARYRound Valley Lions Club: $15,000 · OtherRound Valley Lions Club+2 more: $9,500 · OtherOKANDOGS: $77,500 · AnimalsOKANDOGSWENATCHEE VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $32,000 · AnimalsWENATCHEE VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INCBONES PET RESCUE: $22,000 · AnimalsBONES PET RESCUENCW VETERANS SERVING VETRANS: $40,000 · Public BenefitNCW VETERAN…ROUND VALLEY LIONS CLUB: $5,000 · PhilanthropySeattle Police Pipes and Drums: $5,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$228,750Animals$131,500Public Benefit$40,000Philanthropy$5,000Arts & Culture$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLEAVENWORTH SENIORS COUNCIL: $80,250 over 8y, 50% of budgetOKANDOGS: $77,500 over 3y, 5.8% of budgetUPPER VALLEY MEND: $64,000 over 7y, 0.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE ROUND VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY: $60,000 over 7y, 79% of budgetNCW VETERANS SERVING VETRANS: $40,000 over 6y, 11% of budgetWENATCHEE VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $32,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetBONES PET RESCUE: $22,000 over 5y, 5.4% of budgetROUND VALLEY LIONS CLUB: $5,000 over 1y, 18% 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 LEAVENWORTH SENIORS COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds OKANDOGS ↗
  • Who funds UPPER VALLEY MEND ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ROUND VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY ↗
  • Who funds NCW VETERANS SERVING VETRANS ↗
  • Who funds WENATCHEE VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds BONES PET RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds ROUND VALLEY LIONS CLUB ↗
  • Who funds Seattle Police Pipes and Drums ↗

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.

American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE6.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation 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 Warm Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Warm Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%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
    3report 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 12 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 Warm’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