Skip to content

· Private foundation

Discovering Hope 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.

$90k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$40k
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, FY2019 to 2024.

Health$256kHuman Services$206kReligion$110kEducation$22kAnimals$11kEnvironment$7kPhilanthropy$5kHousing & Shelter$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $5k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $85k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MI$40,000
FISH OF SANIBEL CAPTIVA$20,000
THE JUDSON CENTER$15,000
KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE$10,000
SCCF$2,000
DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY$2,000
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY$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 (FY19–24, $206k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 60% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%FISH OF SANIBEL CAPTIVA: $75k → 11%FISH OF SANIBEL CAPTIVA: $20k → 11%FISH OF SANIBEL CAPTIVA: $20k → 11%FISH OF SANIBEL CAPTIVA: $3k → 11%FISH OF SANIBEL CAPTIVA: $3k → 11%FISH OF SANIBEL CAPTIVA: $3k → 11%THE JUDSON CENTER: $25k → 8%THE JUDSON CENTER: $15k → 8%THE JUDSON CENTER: $13k → 8%THE JUDSON CENTER: $13k → 8%THE JUDSON CENTER: $10k → 8%THE JUDSON CENTER: $8k → 8%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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$588k · 9 repeat orgs$31k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against +27% 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
8

Total granted

$588k
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+27%

Still filing today

44%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesEducationAnimalsHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyFood & NutritionOther
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

  • RO
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
    5× · 2019–2024 · $168k
  • FISH OF SANIBEL-CAPTIVA INC
    6× · 2019–2024 · $123k · revenue +110%
  • KI
    KIRK IN THE HILLS CHURCH
    4× · 2019–2022 · $104k

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN -CPO
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HOSPITAL
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • FO
    FOUNDATION OF THE ISLANDS
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
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
About Face Detroit
—
2
The Michigan Glass Project
Public Benefit
3
Community Pride Mi
Public Benefit
4
Detroit Donates Inc
Housing & Shelter
5
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
6
Coalition to Protect Michigan Resources

The coalition to protect michigan resources's mission is to be a strong voice for the equitable co-management of michigan's fisheries, with both the great lakes and inland lakes and streams, to insure that conservation principles remain in…

Environment
7
Detroit Food Policy Council

The organization was founded by a group of concerned citizens, working in cooperation with the detroit city council, to shape food policy and to work for a more localized, more just, and environmentally friendly food system. the…

Food & Nutrition
8
Feeding America West Michigan

We gather and distribute food to relieve hunger and increase food security in west michigan and the upper peninsula. contributions and net assets consist primarily of donated food for distribution.

—
9
Gesher Human Services

Gesher human services is a bridge to hope and opportunity for people at work, at home, and in the community. gesher's workforce development, behavioral health, and inclusion programming serves all metro detroiters while meeting the needs…

Employment
10
Detroit Food & Entrepreneurship Academy

Detroit food academy partners with local high schools, educators, and food entrepreneurs to facilitate a year-round program. as students develop food-based solutions in their communities, they grow as holistic leaders who are healthy,…

Education
11
Food Bank of Eastern Michigan

The Food Bank of Eastern Michigan's mission is to be the Food Source for people in need. Partnering with organizations to feed the hungry, we advocate and build a community solution to a community problem. By leveraging an abundance of…

Food & Nutrition
12
Matrix Human Services

Inspired by its heritage since 1906, matrix human services advocates for and services the most vulnerable in the metropolitan detroit community and empowers individiuals and families to enhance the quality of their lives and achieve self…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fish of Sanibel-Captiva Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ding Darling Wildlife Society Inc. 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

8 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. 8 of the 18 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $167,500 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGANKIRK IN THE HILLS CHURCH: $103,500 · OtherKIRK IN THE HILLS CHURCHKARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE: $77,500 · OtherKARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE+7 more: $40,000 · Other+7 moreFISH OF SANIBEL-CAPTIVA INC: $122,500 · Human ServicesFISH OF SANIBEL-CAPTIVA INCJUDSON CENTER INC: $83,000 · Human ServicesJUDSON CENTER INCACCENT PONTIAC INC: $10,000 · EducationFRIENDS OF BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS: $1,000 · EducationDING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC: $10,500 · AnimalsSOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER: $1,000 · Housing & ShelterSHARE DETROIT INC: $1,000 · PhilanthropyGLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN: $1,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$388,500Human Services$205,500Education$11,000Animals$10,500Housing & Shelter$1,000Philanthropy$1,000Food & Nutrition$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 budgetFISH OF SANIBEL-CAPTIVA INC: $122,500 over 6y, 2.1% of budgetJUDSON CENTER INC: $83,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetDING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC: $10,500 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetACCENT PONTIAC INC: $10,000 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetSOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHARE DETROIT INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFRIENDS OF BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN: $1,000 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 FISH OF SANIBEL-CAPTIVA INC ↗
  • Who funds JUDSON CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds ACCENT PONTIAC INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER ↗
  • Who funds SHARE DETROIT INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS ↗
  • Who funds GLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN ↗

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.

The Bank of America Charitable Foundation IncNC10× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Bank of America Charitable 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 Discovering Hope Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Discovering Hope Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 18 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 Discovering Hope’s filings →

    More from the funding graph