Skip to content
Haselwood Family Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Haselwood Family 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.

$65k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0185% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$77kHuman Services$70kRecreation & Sports$48kReligion$35kEducation$10kArts & Culture$8kAnimals$6kFood & Nutrition$5kOther$0
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k7 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $47k
$2,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$835k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA$30,000
Individual grant recipient$16,797
MIKES'S RIDES FOR LIVES$6,030
THE MIKE TICE FOUNDATION$2,500
KITSAP REGIONAL LIBRARY FOUNDATION$2,500
ALZHEIMER'S ASSOC WA CHAPTER$2,500
Capturing Kids' Hearts$2,000
ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE$1,750
SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL- SILVERDALE GUILD$500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 72% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%TOYOTA SPECIAL OLYMPICS: $3k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND ATHLETICS: $18k → 9%WESTHILLS BASEBALL CLUB: $5k → 10%JEFFERSON HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION: $1k → 11%CASPER HUMANE SOCIETY: $3k → 11%The Mike Tice Foundation: $3k → 13%ALZHEIMER'S ASSOC WA CHAPTER: $3k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND ATHLETICS: $18k → 9%WEST HILLS BASEBALL CLUB: $5k → 10%CASPER WY YMCA: $3k → 11%THE MIKE TICE FOUNDATION: $3k → 13%Archdiocese of Seattle: $3k → 9%CHRIS BEELER MEMORIAL: $3k → 10%CASPER HUMANE SOCIETY: $3k → 11%ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE: $2k → 9%Mike's Rides for Lives Inc: $6k → 10%CASPER WY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB: $500 → 11%FRED HUTCH CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $44k → 9%MIKES'S RIDES FOR LIVES: $6k → 10%Natrona County YMCA: $408 → 11%CROZIER SOCIETY: $1k → 9%KITSAP REGIONAL LIBRARY: $3k → 10%Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $26k → 9%SOUTH KITSAP PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $500 → 10%CROZIER SOCIETY: $1k → 9%SOUTH KITSAP PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $500 → 10%CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER: $250 → 10%HASELWOOD FAMILY YMCA: $53k → 10%Haselwood YMCA: $14k → 10%Sunny Jack Events LLC: $3k → 10%Capturing Kids' Hearts: $2k → 10%HARRISON MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $1k → 10%OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA: $30k → 10%Central Kitsap Food Bank: $1k → 10%Admiral Theatre Foundation: $5k → 10%CENTRAL KITSAP FOOD BANK: $750 → 10%THE SALVATION ARMY: $3k → 10%Seattle Children's Hospital- Silverdale Guild: $500 → 10%DOWNTOWN BREMERTON ASSOCIATION: $2k → 10%SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL- SILVERDALE GUILD: $500 → 10%Fishline Foodbank: $3k → 10%Olympic College Foundation: $1k → 10%SILVERDALE PEE WEES: $500 → 10%BOOMTOWN PRODUCTIONS: $2k → 10%Kitsap Regional Library Foundation: $3k → 10%KITSAP REGIONAL LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $3k → 10%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.

38%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$115k · 12 repeat orgs$191k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +43% since the first grant, against +30% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
21

Total granted

$115k
$157k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+30%

Still filing today

42%
24%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 47% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthPhilanthropyFood & NutritionArts & CulturePublic BenefitEducationOther
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

  • CH
    CASPER HUMANE SOCIETY
    2× · 2021–2022 · $6k · revenue +29%
  • TM
    THE MIKE TICE FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $5k · revenue +16%
  • KR
    KITSAP REGIONAL LIBRARY FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $5k · revenue +66%

Funded once

  • HF
    HASELWOOD FAMILY YMCA
    one grant, 2022 · $53k
  • FH
    FRED HUTCH CANCER RESEARCH CENTER
    one grant, 2020 · $44k
  • FH
    Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
    one grant, 2023 · $26k · revenue +9%
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
Mount Baker Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Washington Research Foundation
Health
3
Puyallup Kiwanis Foundation
—
4
Seattle University Foundation

Fundraising activities to support Seattle University

—
5
Rotary Foundation of the South Puget Sound Rotary Club
Education
6
Kitsap Community Foundation

: a catalyst for the greater good. we partner with donors and others to invest in our region's nonprofit organizations to foster a more vibrant kitsap peninsula for the benefit of all.

Philanthropy
7
Medical Society of Milwaukee Foundation Inc
Health
8
Puget Sound Kidney Centers Foundation

Puget sound kidney centers (pskc) foundation is dedicated to advancing philanthropic support of pskc to further their mission to enhance the quality of life of those with kidney disease through outstanding dialysis care, education and…

Health
9
Alaska Airlines Foundation
Philanthropy
10
The Community Foundation of South Puget Sound

To grow a lasting culture of generosity and well-being in the South Puget Sound through connection, leadership, and investment.

Philanthropy
11
Washington State Pharmacy Foundation

To support and initiate educational programming, pharmacy practice research and innovative practices to improve and enhance the practice of pharmacy.

Health
12
The Kirtland Cancer Foundation
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kitsap Regional Library Foundation; the most unlike its peers is The Mike Tice Foundation. 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

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 36 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HASELWOOD FAMILY YMCA: $53,090 · OtherHASELWOOD FAMILY YMCAFRED HUTCH CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $44,400 · OtherFRED HUTCH CANCER RESEARCH CENTERUNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND ATHLETICS: $35,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND ATHLETICSIndividual grant recipient: $30,868 · OtherIndividual grant recipientOUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA: $30,000 · OtherOUR LADY STAR OF THE SEAMIKES RIDES FOR LIVES: $12,210 · OtherWEST HILLS BASEBALL CLUB: $10,000 · Other+21 more: $39,803 · Other+21 moreFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $25,995 · HealthFred Hutch…JEFFERSON HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION: $1,250 · HealthCASPER HUMANE SOCIETY: $5,885 · AnimalsADMIRAL THEATRE FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Arts & CultureTHE MIKE TICE FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Public BenefitKITSAP REGIONAL LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $5,000 · EducationOLYMPIC COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $1,250 · PhilanthropySOUTH KITSAP PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Philanthropy
Other$255,371Health$27,245Animals$5,885Arts & Culture$5,000Public Benefit$5,000Education$5,000Philanthropy$2,250

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $25,995 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWEST HILLS BASEBALL CLUB: $10,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetCASPER HUMANE SOCIETY: $5,885 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetADMIRAL THEATRE FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE MIKE TICE FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetKITSAP REGIONAL LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetCentral Kitsap Food Bank: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHARRISON MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $1,250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJEFFERSON HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION: $1,250 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetOLYMPIC COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $1,250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTH KITSAP PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 2y, 2.4% 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 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center ↗
  • Who funds WEST HILLS BASEBALL CLUB ↗
  • Who funds CASPER HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds ADMIRAL THEATRE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE MIKE TICE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds KITSAP REGIONAL LIBRARY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Central Kitsap Food Bank ↗
  • Who funds DOWNTOWN BREMERTON ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds HARRISON MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds JEFFERSON HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OLYMPIC COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH KITSAP PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Kitsap Community Foun…First Fed FoundationSeattle FoundationVanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Kitsap Community FoundationWA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Kitsap Community Foundation · First Fed Foundation · Seattle Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Haselwood Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Haselwood Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–50%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Haselwood Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Haselwood Family 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.

    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 36 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 Haselwood Family’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