Skip to content

· Public charity

Hearts for Hospice

To raise funds to support community hospice, palliative care, grief counseling, and end-of-life education programs.

$93k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$33k
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$309kAnimals$72kFood & Nutrition$30kPublic Benefit$6k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $78,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $92,790 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $14,790 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $72k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$438k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PeaceHealth Sacred Heart Medical Center Foundation$33,000
White Bird Clinic$19,000
Patient Pet Advocates$10,000
Positive Community Kitchen$10,000
Crafting Change$6,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%Cascade Health: $13k → 15%Cascade Health Solutions: $11k → 15%Cascade Health Solutions: $11k → 15%Cascade Health Services: $10k → 15%Cascade Health: $9k → 15%Crafting Change: $6k → 15%Hospice Pet Advocates: $10k → 15%Hospice Pet Advocates: $10k → 15%Hospice Pet Advocates: $8k → 15%Hospice Pet Advocates: $8k → 15%Patient Pet Advocates: $10k → 15%Patient Pet Advocates: $9k → 15%Patient Pet Advocates: $9k → 15%Patient Pet Advocates: $9k → 15%Hospice of Sacred Heart - a program of Peace Health: $21k → 15%Courageous Kids: $20k → 15%White Bird Clinic: $19k → 15%Courageous Kids: $15k → 15%White Bird Clinic: $14k → 15%PeaceHealth Sacred Heart Hospice: $14k → 15%White Bird Clinic: $13k → 15%White Bird Clinic: $12k → 15%White Bird Clinic: $12k → 15%PeaceHealth Sacred Heart Medical Foundation: $10k → 15%Courageous Kids: $10k → 15%Courageous Kids: $8k → 15%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 11% of Hearts for Hospice’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in OR; by stated purpose, 92%.

Hearts for Hospicelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$411k · 6 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
1

Total granted

$411k
$6k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthAnimalsFood & 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

  • HP
    Hospice Pet Advocates
    8× · 2018–2025 · $72k · revenue +4%
  • WB
    WHITE BIRD CLINIC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $70k · revenue +110%
  • WC
    WILLAMETTE COMMUNITY HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC
    5× · 2018–2024 · $54k · revenue +19%

Funded once

  • CC
    CRAFTING CHANGE
    one grant, 2025 · $6k
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
05the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 7 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PEACEHEALTH SACRED HEART MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $141,103 · HealthPEACEHEALTH SACRED HEART MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIONWHITE BIRD CLINIC: $69,800 · HealthWHITE BIRD CLINICWILLAMETTE COMMUNITY HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC: $53,611 · HealthWILLAMETTE COMMUNITY HEALTH SOLUTIONS INCPeaceHealth: $44,683 · HealthPeaceHealthHospice Pet Advocates: $72,209 · AnimalsHospice Pet Advocat…Positive Community Kitchen: $29,525 · Food & NutritionCRAFTING CHANGE: $6,000 · Other
Health$309,197Animals$72,209Food & Nutrition$29,525Other$6,000

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 budgetPEACEHEALTH SACRED HEART MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $141,103 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetHospice Pet Advocates: $72,209 over 8y, 11% of budgetWHITE BIRD CLINIC: $69,800 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetWILLAMETTE COMMUNITY HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC: $53,611 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetPeaceHealth: $44,683 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPositive Community Kitchen: $29,525 over 3y, 4.5% 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 PEACEHEALTH SACRED HEART MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Hospice Pet Advocates ↗
  • Who funds WHITE BIRD CLINIC ↗
  • Who funds WILLAMETTE COMMUNITY HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC ↗
  • Who funds PeaceHealth ↗
  • Who funds Positive Community Kitchen ↗

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 Oregon Community FoundationOR12.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Oregon Community Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Hearts for Hospice funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hearts for Hospice. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 29%
  • White Bird Clinic: 29% of income from government
  • Willamette Community Health Solutions Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Hearts for Hospice?

Find your warmest path to Hearts for Hospice 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 7 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Hearts for Hospice’s filings →

More from the funding graph