Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Douglas Public Health Network

The primary purpose of the organization is to improve the health status of individuals living in douglas county, oregon.

$243k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$62k
Largest
01What you fund
0183% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20192025.

Health$932kArts & Culture$792kPublic Benefit$61kHuman Services$35kEducation$22kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $182k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $62k
$25,300
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UMPQUA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC$61,581
UNITED COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK$35,000
ADAPT$35,000
THE REEDSPORT COLLECTIVE$25,300
ELKTON COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER$22,000
GLIDE REVITALIZATION$22,000
HIV ALLIANCE INC$21,950
COMMUNITY CANCER FOUNDATION$20,389
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY25–25, $60k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%THE REEDSPORT COLLECTIVE: $25k → 17%UNITED COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: $35k → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$1.9M · 7 repeat orgs$255k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
4

Total granted

$1.9M
$128k

Still filing today

43%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $126k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesEducationPublic BenefitOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • U
    UCAN
    2× · 2019–2020 · $792k
  • U
    UCHC
    4× · 2019–2022 · $425k
  • UC
    UMPQUA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER
    3× · 2023–2025 · $260k · revenue +15%

Funded once

  • A
    ADAPT
    one grant, 2019 · $71k
  • CC
    COOS COUNTY OREGON
    one grant, 2023 · $24k
  • JC
    JOSEPHINE COUNTY
    one grant, 2022 · $22k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Douglas Public Health Network

The primary purpose of the organization is to improve the health status of individuals living in douglas county, oregon.

Health
2
Rural Idaho & Mountain West Primary Care
Health
3
Hill Country Community Clinic

Hill country is a place where integrated medical, dental, and mental health services are available to everyone,regardless of ability to pay. see sch o for additional info.

Health
4
Eastern Oregon Healthy Living Alliance

The organization's mission is to support and provide the implementaion of the Regional Community Health Improvement Plan and to support community health development initiatives in Eastern Oregon.

Health
5
Cascade Aids Project

We promote well-being and advance equity by providing inclusive health and wellness services for lgbtq+ people, people affected by hiv, and all those seeking compassionate care.

Health
6
Eastern Oregon Health and Wellness Inc

Eastern oregon health & wellness provides recovery housing and outpatient services that support individuals and families impacted by substance use disorder through safe housing, trauma-informed care, and community-based support.

Health
7
Umpqua Economic Development Partnership Inc

Encourage and facilitate business and economic growth in douglas county, oregon

Community Improvement
8
Penobscot Community Health Center

Penobscot Community Health Center (PCHC) is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1997 that is governed by a Board of community volunteers and is the largest Federally Qualified Health Center in Maine. PCHC is driven by its mission…

Health
9
Coastal Gateway Health Center

To deliver accessible patient-centered healthcare with excellence in quality and service.

Health
10
Clackamas Service Center

Clackamas service center is an inclusive, "one-stop" community center for individuals and families seeking food relief and resources for improved health, dignity, and stability.

Human Services
11
North Central Texas Community Health Care Center

To provide access to quality, affordable, primary care and preventative services by reaching out to everyone, including the underserved. program services are delivered through ten clinical sites located throughout wichita falls, vernon,…

Health
12
Medicine Lodge Community Health

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Umpqua Community Health Center and the most unlike its peers is Glide Revitalization. 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 one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 16 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

UCAN — $791,618 · OtherUCANUCHC — $425,184 · OtherUCHCIndividual grant recipient — $192,584 · OtherIndividual grant recipientADAPT — $117,583 · OtherADAPTADAPT — $71,439 · Other+5 more — $95,575 · Other+5 moreUMPQUA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER — $260,460 · HealthUMPQUA COMMUNITY…COMMUNITY CANCER FOUNDATION — $46,993 · HealthCOMMUNITY CANCER…UNITED COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK — $35,000 · Human ServicesThe Reedsport Collective — $25,300 · Human ServicesElkton Community Education Center — $22,000 · EducationGLIDE REVITALIZATION — $22,000 · Public Benefit
Other$1,693,983Health$307,453Human Services$60,300Education$22,000Public Benefit$22,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetUMPQUA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER — $260,460 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetADAPT — $117,583 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY CANCER FOUNDATION — $46,993 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetUNITED COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK — $35,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Reedsport Collective — $25,300 over 1y, 18% of budgetElkton Community Education Center — $22,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetHIV ALLIANCE — $21,950 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds UMPQUA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER
  • Who funds ADAPT
  • Who funds COMMUNITY CANCER FOUNDATION
  • Who funds UNITED COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK
  • Who funds The Reedsport Collective
  • Who funds Elkton Community Education Center
  • Who funds GLIDE REVITALIZATION
  • Who funds HIV ALLIANCE

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Oregon Community FoundationOR20.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Oregon Community Foundation · The Ford Family Foundation · Hunt C Giles Char - Main · The Roundhouse Foundation · Meyer Memorial Trust · Amazonsmile Foundation

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization Douglas Public Health Network funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 20%1%5%11%20%your share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 54%
  • Glide Revitalization87% of income from government
  • United Community Action Network82% of income from government
  • Hiv Alliance54% of income from government
  • Adapt22% of income from government
  • Umpqua Community Health Center20% of income from government
  • Elkton Community Education Center2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
3rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY2025

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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Douglas Public Health Network?

Find your warmest path to Douglas Public Health Network 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 16 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph