Skip to content

· Private foundation

Hughes Philanthropic Society

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$11k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Human Services$77kInternational$8kReligion$6kCivil Rights$6kPublic Benefit$6kHealth$6kArts & Culture$4kEducation$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $1k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$223k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DEPAUL COMMUNITY RESOURCES$10,000
AGAPE PREGNANCY CENTER$1,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–22, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%JEWISH FOUNDATION FOR GROUP HOMES: $3k → 8%LONDON CARES: $3k → 4%JEWISH FOUNDATION FOR GROUP HOMES: $2k → 8%LONDON CARES: $2k → 4%JEWISH FOUNDATION FOR GROUP HOMES: $1k → 8%JEWISH FOUNDATION FOR GROUP HOMES: $325 → 8%LONDON CARES: $500 → 4%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$107k · 10 repeat orgs$8k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +134% since the first grant, against -2% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
9

Total granted

$107k
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+134%
-2%

Still filing today

60%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k 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
Human ServicesPublic BenefitCivil RightsEducationOther
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

  • DC
    DEPAUL COMMUNITY RESOURCES
    5× · 2020–2024 · $67k · revenue +27%
  • JUDICIAL WATCH INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $6k · revenue +141%
  • ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
    2× · 2017–2019 · $6k · revenue +134%

Funded once

  • JF
    JEWISH FAMILY
    one grant, 2018 · $2k
  • AC
    AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE
    one grant, 2019 · $1k
  • SJ
    ST JUDE
    one grant, 2021 · $1k
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
William Jessup University

In partnership with the church, the purpose of william jessup university is to educate transformational leaders for the glory of god.

—
2
Women's Law Project

Women's law project creates a more just and equitable society by advancing the rights and status of all women throughout their lives. to this end, we engage in high-impact litigation, advocacy, and education. the core values of women's law…

Civil Rights
3
Jubal Band Ministries

Jubal band ministries mission is to invite people to become disciples of christian life with jesus.

Religion
4
Disability Law Center of Virginia

Dlcv's mission is to advance independence, choice and self-determination; protect legal, human, and civil rights; and eliminate abuse, neglect and discrimination of people with disabilities through zealous and uncompromising legal advocacy…

Human Services
5
Goodlife Innovations Inc

Goodlife's mission is to make a meaningful difference in the everyday lives of individuals who need help to live more independently (individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, brain injuries, physical or age-related…

Human Services
6
Power to Decide

Power to decide envisions a world where everyone - no matter who they are or where they live - has control over their bodies and can decide if, when, and under what circumstances to get pregnant and have a child. its mission is to advance…

Human Services
7
American Civil Liberties Union

The american civil liberties union of west virginia (aclu-wv) is a non-partisan, non-profit membership organization whose mission is to fulfill the promise of the bill of rights for all west virginians and expand the reach of its…

—
8
Utah Domestic Violence Advisory Council

The organization's mission is to end domestic violence in utah through advocacy, education, collaboration, and leadership. the organization is the nationally recognized domestic violence coalition for the state of utah.

Crime & Legal
9
Allyfe Pregnancy Clinics

Allyfe pregnancy clinic exists to offer truth, hope, and love to every woman and family facing an unexpected pregnancy. founded in 1985, we have built four decades of integrity as a christ-centered center of excellence - providing…

Human Services
10
Adventist Healthcare Inc

We extend god's care through the ministry of physical, mental and spiritual healing.

—
11
Good Counsel Inc

Good counsel, inc. is a not-for-profit organization rooted in the first principles of catholic morality concerning the dignity of every human person. good counsel recognizes the dignity of god-given life from the moment of conception,…

Human Services
12
Augsburg University

Augsburg university educates students to be informed citizens, thoughtful stewards, critical thinkers, and responsible leaders.the augsburg experience is supported by an engaged community that is committed to intentional diversity in its…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Judicial Watch Inc; the most unlike its peers is Jim Fullingim Ministries Inc. 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 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. 8 of the 20 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DEPAUL COMMUNITY RESOURCES: $67,000 · OtherDEPAUL COMMUNITY RESOURCESJIM FULLINGIM MINISTRIES INC: $6,400 · OtherJIM FULLINGIM MINISTRIES INCBirthright of Loudoun County Inc: $4,500 · OtherNATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE US ARMY: $4,100 · Other+11 more: $10,950 · Other+11 moreJEWISH FOUNDATION FOR GROUP HOMES INC: $5,325 · Human ServicesJEWISH FO…LOUDOUN CARES: $4,500 · Human ServicesLOUDOUN C…JUDICIAL WATCH INC: $5,700 · Public BenefitALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: $5,700 · Civil RightsAMERICAN UNIVERSITY: $1,000 · Education
Other$92,950Human Services$9,825Public Benefit$5,700Civil Rights$5,700Education$1,000

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 budgetDEPAUL COMMUNITY RESOURCES: $67,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetJIM FULLINGIM MINISTRIES INC: $6,400 over 5y, 2.2% of budgetJUDICIAL WATCH INC: $5,700 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: $5,700 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH FOUNDATION FOR GROUP HOMES INC: $5,325 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetLOUDOUN CARES: $4,500 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetBirthright of Loudoun County Inc: $4,500 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetAMERICAN UNIVERSITY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 DEPAUL COMMUNITY RESOURCES ↗
  • Who funds JIM FULLINGIM MINISTRIES INC ↗
  • Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
  • Who funds ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH FOUNDATION FOR GROUP HOMES INC ↗
  • Who funds LOUDOUN CARES ↗
  • Who funds Birthright of Loudoun County Inc ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN UNIVERSITY ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Hughes Philanthropic Society funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hughes Philanthropic Society. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Jewish Foundation for Group Homes Inc: 3% of 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 · 0–10%
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.

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 20 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.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Hughes Philanthropic Society’s filings →

More from the funding graph