· Public charity
Grace Hospice Foundation Inc
The mission of grace hospice foundation, inc.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2019.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 11 grants below total $2,684,796 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $3,550,504 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $865,708 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2019
- $10k–50k6 grants · $115k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $450k
- $250k+2 grants · $2.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| KINDRED AT HOME FOUNDATION INC | $1,707,296 |
| DREAM FOUNDATION | $412,500 |
| COOL KIDS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION INC | $200,000 |
| DAN JANSEN FOUNDATION | $150,000 |
| CHRIST THE KING ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION | $100,000 |
| GAME PLAN FOR LIFE | $25,000 |
| HOLTZ CHARITABLE FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| YMCA OF GREATER CHARLOTTE (LOWE'S YMCA) | $25,000 |
| JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF GREATER BATON ROUGE | $15,000 |
| MARTIN TRUEX JR FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
| INSPIRE OUR CHILDREN | $10,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–19, $553k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 79% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +79% since the first grant, against +50% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2019, 7 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).
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 FY2019, 19% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.2M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- DJDAN JANSEN FOUNDATION INC2× · 2018–2019 · $300k · revenue +335% · 61% of their budget
- CKCOOL KIDS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION INC3× · 2017–2019 · $295k · revenue +79%
- CHCHILDREN'S HOMES OF IREDELL COUNTY INC2× · 2017–2018 · $131k · revenue +28%
Funded once
- PHPRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue +27%
- TIThe Isabella Santos Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $30k · revenue +50%
- DFD3 FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue -59% · 67% of their budget
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
A foundation established to honor jordan schimdt who passed away at the age of 15 from a rare and aggressive cancer. the goal of the foundation is to bring joy and comfort to teenagers battling life threatening and rare diseases during the…
Children battling cancer
D-Feet Cancer The Dalton Fox Foundation raises awareness of Ewing Sarcoma and other under-studied pediatric cancers. By directly funding research into these cancers, we are determined to help discover more effective and less toxic…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Brandon Kirk Sims Foundation and the most unlike its peers is D3 Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
23 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 23 of the 28 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 Gentiva Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds DALMATIAN DREAMS DBA DREAM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DAN JANSEN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds COOL KIDS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S HOMES OF IREDELL COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds RIVERSIDE MILITARY ACADEMY INC ↗
- Who funds TIGER ATHLETIC FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GAME PLAN FOR LIFE INC ↗
- Who funds SAINT ELIZABETH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Junior Achievement of Greater Baton Rouge Inc ↗
- Who funds Inspire Our Children Inc ↗
- Who funds ACE & TJ'S GRIN KIDS INC ↗
- Who funds The Isabella Santos Foundation ↗
- Who funds HOPE AT THE LAKE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HOLTZ CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds D3 FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GREATER CHARLOTTE ↗
- Who funds KARNIVAL KREWE DE LOUISIANE INC ↗
- Who funds MARTIN TRUEX JR FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN LEBANESE SYRIAN ASSOCIATED CHARITIES INC ↗
- Who funds THE BRANDON KIRK SIMS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BREAKTHROUGH T1D ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Foundation for the Carolinas · Albemarle Foundation · Jena and Bob Gallagher Foundation · The US Charitable Gift Trust · Equitable Foundation Inc · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · United Way Worldwide · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Duke Energy Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc
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 Grace Hospice Foundation Inc 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Grace Hospice Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Grace Hospice Foundation Inc 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.