Skip to content
Joseph Kane Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Joseph Kane 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.

$11k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Health$41kHuman Services$6kInternational$6kPublic Safety & Disaster$5kReligion$4kHousing & Shelter$2kEducation$300
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$459k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DON'T BE A CHUMP CHECK FOR A LUMP$5,000
WREATHS ACROSS AMERICA$5,000
LOST OUR HOME PET RESCUE$1,000
BE KIND PEOPLE PROJECT$250
CASA BRAZIL$200
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 (FY23–24, $18k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%RYAN HOUSE: $2k → 11%MYA WOMANS CENTER: $5k → 17%REBUILDING TOGETHER VALLEY OF THE S: $2k → 11%MYA WOMANS CENTER: $4k → 17%SOLDIER'S BEST FRIEND: $5k → 11%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.

33%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$25k · 3 repeat orgs$50k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
14

Total granted

$25k
$44k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-28%
0%

Still filing today

100%
79%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 45% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesPhilanthropyPublic Safety & DisasterEducationReligionOther
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

  • CF
    Check For a Lump
    2× · 2024–2025 · $10k · revenue -28%
  • MW
    MYA WOMENS CENTER INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $9k · revenue +239%
  • CB
    CASA BRAZIL INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $6k · revenue -47%

Funded once

  • PP
    PHOENIX POLICE FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue -20%
  • MC
    MAYO CLINIC FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2024 · $5k
  • AS
    AURORA ST LUKE'S MEDICAL CTR
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
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
Honorhealth

Honorhealth's mission is to improve the health and well-being of those we serve.

Health
2
Arizona Healthiest State Foundation
—
3
Four Angels Foundation
Philanthropy
4
The Dons of Arizona
Education
5
Cancer Support Community Arizona

CSCAZ uplifts and strengthens people impacted by cancer by providing support, fostering compassionate communities, and breaking down barriers to care.

Health
6
Phoenix Rising Hope Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Hospice of the Valley

Bringing comfort, dignity, and compassionate care to our community.

Human Services
8
Banner Health

Banner health's nonprofit mission is "making health care easier, so life can be better".

Health
9
Az Hugs
Human Services
10
Phoenix Children's Hospital

To advance hope, healing and the best healthcare for children and their families.

Health
11
Arizona Latin-American Medical Association
Unclassified
12
Arizona Safe Baby Haven Foundation

Promotes Safe Haven education and awareness on the existing Safe Haven Law in Arizona to prevent the illegal abandonment of infants across the state.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Phoenix Police Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Servants of Mary. 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

16 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. 16 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
8/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Check For a Lump: $10,000 · HealthCheck For a LumpAMANDA HOPE RAINBOW ANGELS: $5,000 · HealthAMANDA HOPE RAINBOW ANGELSHealthwell Foundation: $5,000 · HealthHealthwell FoundationPhoenix Children's Hospital Foundation: $2,500 · HealthPhoenix Children's Hospital Foundatio…Anthony Bates Foundation: $2,500 · HealthAnthony Bates FoundationMYA WOMENS CENTER INC: $8,600 · Human ServicesMYA WOMENS CENTER INCSOLDIERS BEST FRIEND: $5,000 · Human ServicesSOLDIERS BEST FRIENDRYAN HOUSE: $2,000 · Human ServicesRYAN HOUSEREBUILDING TOGETHER VALLEY OF THE SUN INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesREBUILDING TOGETHER VALLEY…MAYO CLINIC FOUNDATION: $5,000 · OtherMAYO CLINIC FOUNDATI…AURORA ST LUKE'S MEDICAL CTR: $5,000 · OtherAURORA ST LUKE'S MED…OUR LADY OF PEACE CHURCH: $2,000 · OtherOUR LADY OF PEACE CH…Lost Our Home Pet Foundation: $1,000 · OtherLost Our Home Pet Fo…+2 more: $550 · OtherCASA BRAZIL INC: $6,072 · PhilanthropyCASA BRAZI…Trends Charitable Fund: $1,000 · PhilanthropyTrends Cha…PHOENIX POLICE FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Public Safety & DisasterWreaths Across America: $5,000 · Public BenefitSERVANTS OF MARY: $1,600 · Religion
Health$25,000Human Services$17,600Other$13,550Philanthropy$7,072Public Safety & Disaster$5,000Public Benefit$5,000Religion$1,600

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 budgetCheck For a Lump: $10,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetMYA WOMENS CENTER INC: $8,600 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetCASA BRAZIL INC: $6,072 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetPHOENIX POLICE FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSOLDIERS BEST FRIEND: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAMANDA HOPE RAINBOW ANGELS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHealthwell Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPhoenix Children's Hospital Foundation: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAnthony Bates Foundation: $2,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetRYAN HOUSE: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSERVANTS OF MARY: $1,600 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTrends Charitable Fund: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUniversity of Arizona Foundation: $300 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.

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.

Arizona Community Fou…American Express Foun…Thunderbirds CharitiesThe Albertsons Compan…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Arizona Community FoundationAZ16.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Arizona Community Foundation · American Express Foundation · Thunderbirds Charities · The Albertsons Companies Foundation · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 Joseph Kane Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Joseph Kane Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%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
    1get no government money at all
    3report 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 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Joseph Kane’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