· Private foundation
John and Wauna Harman 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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
67% of John and Wauna Harman Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Yakima Valley Community Foundation, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 8 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2024, the last year John and Wauna Harman Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 9 organizations, $2M. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k5 grants · $13k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $117k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $278k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.3M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| REIMAGINE INC | $1,000,000 |
| CENTER FOR PRACTICAL BIOETHICS | $250,000 |
| PAUSE | $100,000 |
| COALITION TO TRANSFORM ADVANCED CARE (C-TAC) | $77,500 |
| WELLNESS HOUSE | $50,000 |
| PROJECT GUARDIANSHIP | $50,000 |
| END WELL FOUNDATION | $40,000 |
| HOSPICE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA | $25,000 |
| DUKE DIVINITY SCHOOL | $25,000 |
| SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON OFFICE OF AGING AND LONG TERM CARE | $16,660 |
| CENTER FOR PRACTICAL BIOETHICS | $10,000 |
| COALITION TO TRANSFORM ADVANCED CARE (C-TAC) | $5,000 |
| HARMAN CENTER | $2,500 |
| SOUTH CAROLINA NURSES FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,940 |
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 (FY18–25, $332k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 30% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 32% of John and Wauna Harman Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +12% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
24 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call). Read against FY2024, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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 FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $57k 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
- HFHOSPICE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC5× · 2017–2024 · $242k · revenue +51%
Public Health Institute3× · 2019–2022 · $145k · revenue +114%- PSPEACEKEEPER SOCIETY3× · 2020–2022 · $125k · revenue +2%
Funded once
- YPYAKAMA POWERone grant, 2023 · $150k
- RMREEL MEDICINE MEDIAone grant, 2023 · $150k · revenue +6%
- PSPENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY MILTON S Hone grant, 2017 · $90k
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.
Provide end of life care through the hospice philosophy
Helping individuals live with dignity through the final stage of life.
Our mission is to relieve suffering and improve the quality and dignity of life through compassionate hospice care at the end of life, palliative care for those with advanced illness, and through community education.
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
Kaiser foundation for the advancement of integrated health care is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) advocacy organization to engage in proactive advocacy to promote understanding of the benefits of integrated care and coverage, and support of the…
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
To fund the program and services of hospice of the nothwest to ensure dignified and compassionate care is available to anyone coping with a life-limiting diagnosis.one size doesn't always fit all, especially when it comes to quality of…
The mission of the national coalition on health care (nchc) is to support research and analysis, develop and promote policy solutions, build consensus, and engage the public in order to ensure that america has a high quality health system…
The organization's mission is to build partnerships to enhance compassionate care globally. we are dedicated to improving access to hospice and palliative care worldwide.
The national coalition for hospice and palliative care works to improve the care of people with serious or life-limiting illnesses by convening the field, advocating for equitable policies and improved health outcomes, establishing best…
The foundation is set up to deliver one program - look good feel better. the mission of this nationwide program is to improve the quality of life of women, men, and teens undergoing cancer treatment by offering advice on how to cope with…
Supporting kaiser permanente organizations which provide high-quality, affordable health care services to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Family Philanthropy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Reel Medicine Media. 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 28 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) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% 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.
27 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. 27 of the 40 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 YAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR PRACTICAL BIOETHICS INC ↗
- Who funds Wellness House ↗
- Who funds HOSPICE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds REEL MEDICINE MEDIA ↗
- Who funds Public Health Institute ↗
- Who funds PEACEKEEPER SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Coalition To Transform Advanced Car ↗
- Who funds MONTGOMERY HOSPICE INC ↗
- Who funds COASTAL HOSPICE ↗
- Who funds COMMONWEAL ↗
- Who funds END WELL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FJC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR DISASTER PHILANTHROPY INC ↗
- Who funds THE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PROJECT GUARDIANSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds THE GLEANINGS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds HEART TONES INC ↗
- Who funds GRANTMAKERS IN AGING INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CENTER FOR FAMILY PHILANTHROPY INC ↗
- Who funds MOCKINGBIRD INCUBATOR ↗
- Who funds Northern California Grantmakers ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CAROLINA NURSES FOUNDATI ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR COMPASSIONATE CARE OF CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds PEAK GRANTMAKING INC ↗
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: The y C Hohelen and Michael Chiang Foundation · Stupski Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 John and Wauna Harman Foundation 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 John and Wauna Harman Foundation?
Find your warmest path to John and Wauna Harman 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.