Skip to content
Jim and Diana Huckle Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Jim and Diana Huckle Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$960k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$333k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$1.7MYouth Development$1.3MPhilanthropy$803kRecreation & Sports$750kEmployment$462kArts & Culture$240kEducation$200kCommunity Improvement$192kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $2k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $75k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $550k
  • $250k+1 grant · $333k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE GRAND TRAVERSE BAY YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCI$333,334
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN INC$200,000
INTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS$125,000
FRIENDS OF THE GRAND TRAVERSE CONSERVATION DISTRIC$100,000
PADDLE ANTRIM$75,000
WOMENS RESOURCE CENTER OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN$50,000
GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$25,000
GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$25,000
GENERATIONS AHEAD$15,000
WARM HEARTS FOUNDATION$10,000
GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$2,100
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 (FY17–25, $270k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 81% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%SOARING UNLIMITED: $36k → 16%WOMENS RESOURCE CENTER OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN: $50k → 9%SOARING UNLIMITED: $20k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $20k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $10k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $10k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $10k → 16%FATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $25k → 10%SOARING UNLIMITED: $10k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $8k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $5k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $5k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $5k → 16%GENERATIONS AHEAD: $15k → 10%SOARING UNLIMITED: $4k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $4k → 16%SOARING UNLIMITED: $3k → 16%GENERATIONS AHEAD: $10k → 10%SOARING UNLIMITED: $3k → 16%GENERATIONS AHEAD: $10k → 10%GENERATIONS AHEAD: $10k → 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.
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 6% of Jim and Diana Huckle Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Jim and Diana Huckle Family Foundationlessmore 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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.8M · 21 repeat orgs$556k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +78% since the first grant, against +18% for those funded once.

21 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
21

Total granted

$4.8M
$506k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+78%
+18%

Still filing today

86%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentHuman ServicesArts & CultureEmploymentInternationalYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • GT
    GRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSERVANCY
    6× · 2017–2024 · $999k · revenue +321%
  • TA
    TRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS INC
    6× · 2018–2024 · $585k · revenue +219%
  • GI
    GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN INC
    4× · 2017–2025 · $457k · revenue +78%

Funded once

  • BO
    Burr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
  • OT
    ONEKAMA TOWNSHIP
    one grant, 2023 · $50k
  • DC
    DISCOVERY CENTER GREAT LAKESgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +824%
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
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
2
Great Lakes Center for the Arts

The Center's mission is to inspire, entertain, educate, and serve all in Northern Michigan year-round by presenting exceptional experiences across the full spectrum of the performing arts and offering impactful educational opportunities.

Arts & Culture
3
Little Traverse Conservancy Conservation Trust

To protect scenic and natural lands in northern Michigan.

—
4
Lake Superior Community Partnership Inc

To stimulate and sustain a vibrant regional economy by facilitating economic growth and prosperity.

—
5
Top of Michigan Trails Council

We advocate and facilitate the development of a network of multipurpose recreational trails in Northern Lower Michigan.

Recreation & Sports
6
The Little Forks Conservancy Inc

To permanently protect and improve natural environments in Mid-Michigan by leading and inspiring actions that conserve vital habitats and waterways for the benefit of our entire community.

Environment
7
Leelanau Conservancy

To conserve the land, water and scenic character of leelanau county, and to provide educational programs to develop an understanding and appreciation of leelanau county's natural heritage.

Environment
8
Fund for Lake Michigan Inc

Lake Michigan is one of Wisconsin's greatest assets, and its water is critical to the state's future. The Fund for Lake Michigan is here to help sustain the Lake on behalf of the people and places that depend on it. Our goal is to have a…

Environment
9
Six Rivers Land Conservancy Fka Six Rivers Regional Land Conservancy

To conserve, sustain, and connect natural areas, land, and waters that make the places we live special

Environment
10
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
11
Land Information Access Association

Liaa is a community service organization working to increase the sustainability of communities and expand civic engagement. our mission statement is: helping people to shape better communities through: participation, education, information…

Environment
12
Michigan Trails & Greenways Alliance

Michigan trails & greenways alliance is the statewide voice for nonmotorized trail users, helping people build, connect and promote trails for a healthier and more prosperous michigan.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy; the most unlike its peers is Burr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

35 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 35 of the 44 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)
17
Early backer (in before they grew)
35/35
Grantees still filing
24/35
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE GRAND TRAVERSE BAY YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCI: $1,000,002 · OtherTHE GRAND TRAVERSE BAY YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSO…TRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS INC: $585,000 · OtherTRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS…NORTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COLLEGE: $200,000 · OtherNORTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COLLEGEBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NORTHWE: $154,500 · OtherBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NORTHWEGROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES INC: $150,000 · OtherGROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES INCTRAVERSE CITY CENTER OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP: $124,500 · Other+17 more: $403,000 · Other+17 moreGRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSERVANCY: $998,833 · EnvironmentGRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND …FRIENDS OF THE GRAND TRAVERSE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $200,000 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF THE GRAND TRAVERSE…FOR LOVE OF WATER: $182,500 · EnvironmentFOR LOVE OF WATERPADDLE ANTRIM: $105,000 · EnvironmentPADDLE ANTRIM+3 more: $120,000 · Environment+3 moreGRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $780,600 · PhilanthropyGRAND TRAVERSE…+1 more: $22,500 · PhilanthropyGOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN INC: $457,000 · Employment+1 more: $5,000 · EmploymentSOARING UNLIMITED DBA CENTRE DE SANTE SOARING PISTER: $150,000 · Human ServicesWomens Resource Center of Northern Michigan Inc: $50,000 · Human ServicesGENERATIONS AHEAD: $45,000 · Human ServicesFATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Human ServicesINTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $130,000 · Arts & CultureDISCOVERY CENTER GREAT LAKES: $50,000 · Arts & CultureCITY OPERA HOUSE HERITAGE ASSOCIATION INC: $50,000 · Arts & Culture+1 more: $5,000 · Arts & CultureNORTE YOUTH CYCLING: $111,000 · Youth DevelopmentBurr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State: $50,000 · Youth Development
Other$2,617,002Environment$1,606,333Philanthropy$803,100Employment$462,000Human Services$270,000Arts & Culture$235,000Youth Development$161,000

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 budgetGRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL LAND CONSERVANCY: $998,833 over 6y, 4.1% of budgetGRAND TRAVERSE REGIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $780,600 over 9y, 3.5% of budgetTRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS INC: $585,000 over 6y, 8.1% of budgetGOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN INC: $457,000 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE GRAND TRAVERSE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $200,000 over 2y, 23% of budgetFOR LOVE OF WATER: $182,500 over 5y, 12% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NORTHWE: $154,500 over 6y, 4.8% of budgetGROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES INC: $150,000 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetSOARING UNLIMITED DBA CENTRE DE SANTE SOARING PISTER: $150,000 over 8y, 9.2% of budgetINTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $130,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetTRAVERSE CITY CENTER OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP: $124,500 over 3y, 11% of budgetNORTE YOUTH CYCLING: $111,000 over 4y, 5.9% of budgetPADDLE ANTRIM: $105,000 over 2y, 23% of budgetIMMIGRATION LAW & JUSTICE MICHIGAN: $85,000 over 3y, 4.0% of budgetMT HOLIDAY INC: $60,000 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetDISCOVERY CENTER GREAT LAKES: $50,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetCITY OPERA HOUSE HERITAGE ASSOCIATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetLittle Traverse Conservancy Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetINLAND SEAS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION: $50,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetGENERATIONS AHEAD: $45,000 over 4y, 3.8% of budgetGRASS RIVER NATURAL AREA INC: $40,000 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetFATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetUNITED WAY OF NORTHWEST MICHIGAN: $22,500 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetWARM HEARTS FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetGRAND TRAVERSE BAY WATERSHED INITIATIVE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetUTOPIA FOUNDATION INC: $12,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetCHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF NORTHWESTERN MICHIGAN INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNORTHWEST MICHIGAN WORKS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFISHTOWN PRESERVATION SOCIETY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPURE WATER FOR THE WORLD INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCONSERVATION RESOURCE ALLIANCE: $4,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

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.

Grand Traverse Region…Rotary Charities of T…Oleson FoundationThe Art and Mary Schm…Consumers Energy Foun…Les & Ann Biederman F…DTE Energy FoundationCharlevoix County Com…Petoskey-Harbor Sprin…Harry a and Margaret …Frey FoundationShell USA Company Fou…
Grand Traverse Regional Community FoundationMI61.5× affinity27 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Grand Traverse Regional Community Foundation · Rotary Charities of Traverse City · Oleson Foundation · The Art and Mary Schmuckal Family Foundation · Consumers Energy Foundation · Les & Ann Biederman Foundation Inc · DTE Energy Foundation · Charlevoix County Community Foundation · Petoskey-Harbor Springs Area Community Foundation · Harry a and Margaret D Towsley Foundation · Frey Foundation · Shell USA Company 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 Jim and Diana Huckle Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jim and Diana Huckle Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 44 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Jim and Diana Huckle 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