· Private foundation
Douglas A & Margaret E DeCamp 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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
68% of Douglas A & Margaret E DeCamp Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Barry Community Foundation, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year Douglas A & Margaret E DeCamp Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 7 organizations, $1M. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k4 grants · $13k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $148k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $380k
- $250k+2 grants · $550k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Serenity Village of Barry County | $300,000 |
| YMCA of Barry County | $250,000 |
| Barry Community Foundation | $200,000 |
| Spectrum Health Foundation | $100,000 |
| Maple Valley Schools | $80,000 |
| Willard G Pierce and Jessie M Pierce Foundation | $45,200 |
| Grand Rapids Symphony | $43,000 |
| VFW Post 8260 Thornapple Valley | $40,000 |
| Thornapple Arts Council | $10,000 |
| Casa For Kids | $10,000 |
| Barry County Serenity Club | $5,000 |
| Spiritual Care Consultants of West Michigan | $4,332 |
| Embracing Imperfections Inc | $3,000 |
| Hastings Area School District | $475 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Its human-services grants (FY18–22, $103k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Where the work is directed
The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.
About 6% of Douglas A & Margaret E DeCamp 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 MI; by stated purpose, 71%.
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +25% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.
14 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2023, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- TWTHE WILLARD G PIERCE AND JESSIE M PIERCE FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · $276k · revenue +35%
- GGGREEN GABLES HAVEN2× · 2021–2022 · $53k · revenue +25%
- CFCASA FOR KIDS INC4× · 2017–2024 · $47k · revenue +181%
Funded once
- COCity of Hastingsone grant, 2020 · $74k
- CACOMMUNITY ACTION AGENCYone grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue -12%
- GRGRAND RAPIDS SYMPHONY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2019 · $23k · revenue 0%
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.
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.
Providing patient support, community connections, education and advocacy.
To promote business and economic development for eight towns in southwest michigan.
To provide compassionate in-home skilled nursing care and supportive resources for those affected by cancer and related illnesses in southwest michigan.
To advance pharmacy through education, practice innovation and research focused on patient care, for the improvement and promotion of public health and public education.
Surrounding seniors with the care you need to remain in the home you love.
Protecting life. sharing the truth. empowering people to make healthy life choices
Assisting the community mental health boards of michigan in developing methods for mental health planning, care and treatment.
Provide free legal assistance to indigent and low income persons
Mid michigan community action guides local residents on the path to self-sufficiency through empowerment, education and community enrichment.
To protect and restore central michigan's land, water, and wildlife resources to improve the quality of life for all.
Working together to strengthen the quality of life in our communties.
Hospice care - wings of hope hospice and palliative care, inc. provides compassionate care in the later stages of life and support through the grief experience for individuals and families.
How this is measured
12 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. 12 of the 25 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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 BARRY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COREWELL HEALTH FOUNDATION WEST MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds SERENITY VILLAGE OF BARRY COUNTY ↗
- Who funds THE WILLARD G PIERCE AND JESSIE M PIERCE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GREEN GABLES HAVEN ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY ↗
- Who funds CASA FOR KIDS INC ↗
- Who funds GRAND RAPIDS SYMPHONY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BARRY COUNTY UNITED WAY ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE HASTINGS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER ↗
- Who funds SPIRITUAL CARE CONSULTANTS OF WEST MICHIGAN INC ↗
- Who funds EMBRACING IMPERFECTIONS INC ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Barry Community Foundation · Consumers Energy Foundation · Feldpausch Foundation · WK Kellogg Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Douglas A & Margaret E DeCamp Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Douglas A & Margaret E DeCamp Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Douglas A & Margaret E DeCamp Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Douglas A & Margaret E DeCamp 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.
Play a game based on Douglas A & Margaret E DeCamp’s filings →