Skip to content
Ac Portland at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Ac Portland

To empower students to lead healthy lives, succeed academically, and inspire positive community engagement.

$50k
Granted FY2020
3
Grants FY2020
2
States reached
$28k
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, FY2018 to 2020.

Recreation & Sports$165kHuman Services$27kYouth Development$20k
02FY2020 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $43k
$15,225
Median grant
2
States reached
$282k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT$27,993
METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES$15,225
LATINO NETWORK$6,751
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 (FY18–20, $130k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $55k → 12%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $46k → 12%METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $15k → 12%LATINO NETWORK: $7k → 12%LATINO NETWORK: $7k → 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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$172k · 5 repeat orgs$41k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +167% since the first grant, against +108% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2020, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
2

Total granted

$172k
$13k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+167%
+108%

Still filing today

80%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 44% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20
Human ServicesCrime & LegalOther
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

  • MF
    Metropolitan Family Service
    3× · 2018–2020 · $116k · revenue +83%
  • THE IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
    2× · 2018–2019 · $15k · revenue +167%
  • Latino Network
    2× · 2019–2020 · $14k · revenue +198%

Funded once

  • SELF ENHANCEMENT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $8k · revenue +108%
  • IMPACT NWgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +39%
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 8 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
6/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Metropolitan Family Service: $116,032 · Human ServicesMetropolitan Family ServiceLatino Network: $13,665 · Human ServicesLatino NetworkIMPACT NW: $5,389 · Human ServicesROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT: $27,993 · OtherROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENTTHE IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION: $14,919 · OtherTHE IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE COMMUNIT…CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $14,783 · OtherCATHOLIC CHARITIESSELF ENHANCEMENT INC: $8,109 · OtherSELF ENHANCEMENT INCAMERICA SCORES: $12,200 · Crime & Legal
Human Services$135,086Other$65,804Crime & Legal$12,200

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMetropolitan Family Service: $116,032 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetTHE IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION: $14,919 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLatino Network: $13,665 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSELF ENHANCEMENT INC: $8,109 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetIMPACT NW: $5,389 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.

Onpoint Community Cre…Careoregon IncJuan Young TrustOCF Joseph E Weston P…Umpqua Bank Charitabl…The Collins FoundationMeyer Memorial TrustThe Oregon Community …The Blackbaud Giving …American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Onpoint Community Credit UnionOR13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Onpoint Community Credit Union · Careoregon Inc · Juan Young Trust · OCF Joseph E Weston Public Foundation · Umpqua Bank Charitable Foundation · The Collins Foundation · Meyer Memorial Trust · The Oregon Community Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Ac Portland funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ac Portland. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 14%
  • Metropolitan Family Service: 29% of income from government
  • Latino Network: 15% of income from government
  • Self Enhancement Inc: 14% of income from government
  • Impact Nw: 8% of income from government
  • The Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization: 4% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 8 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2020, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Ac Portland’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