Skip to content
Bob and Shirley Hooper Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Bob and Shirley Hooper Foundation Inc

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.

$34k
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$628k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$5,000
FAWN GROVE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE$5,000
AMERICAN VALUES$2,000
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION$2,000
BETHESDA TRANSFORMATION CENTER$2,000
CHAR HOPE FOUNDATION$2,000
FAMILY TALK$2,000
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY$2,000
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL$2,000
FAMILY LIFE$2,000
BILLY GRAHAM EVANGELISTIC ASSOC$2,000
TURNING POINT USA$1,250
HUMAN LIFE SERVICES$1,000
ANCHOR RIDGE$1,000
PETER & JOHN MINISTRIES$1,000
02The need
02

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 (FY25–25, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: $2k → 14%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 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
Caring Counseling Ministries

Biblical family counseling

Human Services
2
Freedom Church

Religion

Religion
3
Family Council

We promote, protect, and strengthen traditional family values by standing for a biblical worldview. we blend the time-honored principles of the bible with sound scientific research to shape public policy and influence public opinion so…

Civil Rights
4
House of Refuge Faith Based
Human Services
5
Minnesota Family Council

Minnesota family council (mfc) is a non-profit christian organization that is dedicated to strengthening minnesota families by advancing biblical principles in the public arena, for the glory of the lord jesus christ and the good of…

—
6
Family Policy Council of West Virginia Inc

A servant organization that advocates for policies that embrace the sanctity of human life enrich marriages and the safeguard of religious freedom

Civil Rights
7
Liberty Initiative

Biblical worldview advancement

Religion
8
Freedom Path Counseling Inc

Christian counseling sevices from a biblical perspective

Religion
9
Global Faith Network
Human Services
10
Safe Haven Counseling Associates in

Biblical counseling

—
11
Faith to Faith Ministry Faith to Fatih Ministry

Radio braodcast

Religion
12
Victory Family Services
Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Family Association Inc; the most unlike its peers is Mason-Dixon Community Services. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 17 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)
9/10
Grantees still filing
2/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientFAWN GROVE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE: $5,000 · OtherFAWN GROVE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENEFOCUS ON THE FAMILY: $2,000 · OtherFOCUS ON THE FAMILYBILLY GRAHAM EVANGELISTIC ASSOC: $2,000 · OtherBILLY GRAHAM EVANGELISTIC ASSOCFAMILY LIFE: $2,000 · OtherFAMILY LIFETURNING POINT USA INC: $1,250 · OtherTURNING POINT USA INCPETER & JOHN MINISTRIES: $1,000 · OtherUPPER CHESAPEAKE HEALTH: $1,000 · Other+1 more: $500 · OtherDr James Dobson Family Institute: $2,000 · ReligionDr James Dobson …AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION INC: $2,000 · ReligionAMERICAN FAMILY …ANCHOR RIDGE: $1,000 · ReligionANCHOR RIDGEBETHESDA TRANSFORMATION CENTER: $2,000 · Housing & ShelterAMERICAN VALUES: $2,000 · Arts & CultureTHE CHAR HOPE FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 · HealthFAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: $2,000 · Human ServicesHuman Life Services Inc: $1,000 · Civil Rights
Other$19,750Religion$5,000Housing & Shelter$2,000Arts & Culture$2,000Health$2,000Human Services$2,000Civil Rights$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 budgetBETHESDA TRANSFORMATION CENTER: $2,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetAMERICAN VALUES: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CHAR HOPE FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDr James Dobson Family Institute: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTURNING POINT USA INC: $1,250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHuman Life Services Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMASON-DIXON COMMUNITY SERVICES: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

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 17 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 Bob and Shirley Hooper’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