Skip to content
Blum Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Blum Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$453k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Human Services$1.4MYouth Development$860kCrime & Legal$540kHousing & Shelter$540kArts & Culture$200kHealth$35kRecreation & Sports$25kFood & Nutrition$16kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $25k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $415k
$64,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$6.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
KIDS UNLIMITED OF OREGON$100,000
FAMILY NURTURING CENTER$100,000
MASLOW PROJECT$75,000
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER$75,000
JPR FOUNDATION - HOLLY THEATER$64,500
WALKING TALL SOUTHERN OREGON$15,000
CHILDRENS MUSEUM OF SO OR$10,000
MISCELLANEOUS$7,000
H O P E EQUESTRIAN CENTER$5,000
COMMUNITY WORKS$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.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY22–22, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%NORTHWEST BATTLE BUDDIES: $25k → 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.
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 15% of Blum Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in OR; by stated purpose, 85%.

Blum Family Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.5M · 12 repeat orgs$126k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +108% since the first grant, against +102% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
10

Total granted

$3.5M
$126k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+108%
+102%

Still filing today

67%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Food & NutritionEducationYouth DevelopmentHealthHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • TF
    THE FAMILY NURTURING CENTER ROGUE VALLEY CHILDREN'S RELIEF NURSERY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $755k · revenue +138%
  • KU
    KIDS UNLIMITED OF OREGON
    8× · 2017–2024 · $755k · revenue +106%
  • MP
    MASLOW PROJECT
    8× · 2017–2024 · $540k · revenue +108%

Funded once

  • OREGON CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEARNING DBA KID TIMEgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $35k · revenue +518%
  • NB
    NORTHWEST BATTLE BUDDIESgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +102%
  • MP
    MEDFORD PARKS & RECREATION FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue -112%
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
Priority Oregon

To support public policies that will help oregon's economy and create new family supporting jobs in oregon.

—
2
Malheur County Child Development Center

Head start & other children services

Education
3
The Chamber of Medfordjackson County

To enhance and promote economic vitality and quality of life in southern oregon using business and community resources; fostering communication and collaboration on issues paramount to business success.

—
4
Oregon Justice Network

Oregon Justice Network is an alliance built and staffed by criminal legal system impacted people advocating for the well-being of people affected or at-risk of being affected by carceral systems. Our work centers around restorative…

Human Services
5
Farmers Ending Hunger

The organization's mission is to increase the quantity of high quality food commodities donated to the oregon food bank network through a partnership of farmers, food processors, the oregon food bank network and the public.

Human Services
6
Josephine County Food Bank

Our mission is to lead the effort to eliminate hunger by empowering our community. we respond to the root causes of hunger and supports our community by striving to nourish, restore dignity, provide health and champion…

Human Services
7
Friends of Family Farmers

Promote and project socially responsible agriculture in oregon, while working to support independent, family scale farmers and rachers who are ecologically farming in ways that are respectful of land, animals and community.

Food & Nutrition
8
Jackson County Community Services Consortium

Enhance delivery of quality, integrated, accessible services

—
9
Friends Sharing Food Inc

Help reduce hunger in jackson county. our recipients are treated with compassion, dignity and respect.

Food & Nutrition
10
Northwest Nutrition Service

Facilitate healthy meals for children.

Food & Nutrition
11
Every Child Central Oregon

Mobilizing the community to uplift children and families impacted by foster care in Oregon.

Human Services
12
Family Forward Oregon

We work collectively to educate and advocate for systems that elevate the vital work of care and caregiving in its many forms within our community.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Works Inc; the most unlike its peers is Neighborhood Food Project. 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 22 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
13/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ACCESS: $515,000 · OtherACCESSCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER JACKSON: $315,000 · OtherCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER JACKSONJACKSON COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TASK FORCE DBA CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER: $225,000 · OtherJACKSON COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TASK FORCE DBA …JPR FOUNDATION - HOLLY THEATER: $164,500 · OtherJPR FOUNDATION - HOLLY THEATER+9 more: $118,780 · Other+9 moreKIDS UNLIMITED OF OREGON: $755,000 · Youth DevelopmentKIDS UNLIMITED OF OREGONMASLOW PROJECT: $540,000 · Youth DevelopmentMASLOW PROJECTTHE FAMILY NURTURING CENTER ROGUE VALLEY CHILDREN'S RELIEF NURSERY: $755,000 · EducationTHE FAMILY NURTURING CE…+1 more: $5,000 · EducationWALKING TALL SOUTHERN OREGON: $75,000 · ReligionCOMMUNITY WORKS INC: $51,000 · HealthASANTE FOUNDATION: $10,000 · HealthOREGON CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEARNING DBA KID TIME: $35,000 · Arts & CultureNORTHWEST BATTLE BUDDIES: $25,000 · Human Services
Other$1,338,280Youth Development$1,295,000Education$760,000Religion$75,000Health$61,000Arts & Culture$35,000Human Services$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE FAMILY NURTURING CENTER ROGUE VALLEY CHILDREN'S RELIEF NURSERY: $755,000 over 8y, 3.3% of budgetKIDS UNLIMITED OF OREGON: $755,000 over 8y, 1.4% of budgetMASLOW PROJECT: $540,000 over 8y, 3.7% of budgetACCESS: $515,000 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetJACKSON COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TASK FORCE DBA CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER: $225,000 over 3y, 4.2% of budgetWALKING TALL SOUTHERN OREGON: $75,000 over 5y, 8.5% of budgetCOMMUNITY WORKS INC: $51,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetOREGON CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEARNING DBA KID TIME: $35,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetHOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $25,000 over 5y, 2.4% of budgetNORTHWEST BATTLE BUDDIES: $25,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetASANTE FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJackson County Library Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetMEDFORD FOOD PROJECT: $4,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetJACKSON COUNTY 4-H FFA JR LIVESTOCK AUCTION COMMITTEE INC: $1,780 over 1y, 2.2% 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.

Carrico Family Founda…The Carpenter Foundat…The Oregon Community …Robert and Frances Ch…Joe & Frances Naumes …The Roundhouse Founda…West Family FoundationOCF Joseph E Weston P…The Ford Family Found…The Leightman Maxey F…United Way of Jackson…Anna May Family Found…
Carrico Family FoundationOR28.4× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Carrico Family Foundation · The Carpenter Foundation · The Oregon Community Foundation · Robert and Frances Chaney Family Foundation · Joe & Frances Naumes Family Foundation · The Roundhouse Foundation · West Family Foundation · OCF Joseph E Weston Public Foundation · The Ford Family Foundation · The Leightman Maxey Foundation · United Way of Jackson County Inc · Anna May Family 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 Blum Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Blum Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 42%
  • Access: 65% of income from government
  • Community Works Inc: 59% of income from government
  • Oregon Center for Creative Learning Dba Kid Time: 42% of income from government
  • The Family Nurturing Center Rogue Valley Children's Relief Nursery: 38% of income from government
  • Maslow Project: 22% of income from government
  • Hope Equestrian Center: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
5get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
2rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Blum Family Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Blum Family Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 22 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 Blum Family’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