Skip to content

· Private foundation

Laurel Foundation

Its FY2018 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$4.7M
Granted FY2018
2
Grants FY2018
1
States reached
$4.7M
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, FY2017 to 2018.

Philanthropy$4.7MHuman Services$121kHousing & Shelter$50kEducation$28kFood & Nutrition$23kHealth$500
02FY2018 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $77k
  • $250k+1 grant · $4.7M
$4,658,703
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JPMORGAN CHARITABLE GIVING FUND PROGRAM$4,658,703
JPMORGAN CHARITABLE GIVING FUND PROGRAM$76,846
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 (FY17–17, $176k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%GRACE PLACE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: $25k → 10%LAZARUS HOUSE: $30k → 8%MUTUAL GROUND: $121k → 8%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 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
Habitat for Humanity of Lapeer - Tuscola

To eliminate sub-standard housing and homelessness from lapeer county.

—
2
Samaritan House Inc

Provide shelter and basic needs for homeless people. while fostering self-respect and human dignity, samaritan house will encourage the residents' efforts to find employment and housing.

Housing & Shelter
3
Lazarus House Inc

Opening doors out of poverty by providing shelter, food, clothing and education, and support for the homeless and the poor, in the lawrence, massachusetts area.

Housing & Shelter
4
Habitat for Humanity of Baldwin County Inc

Habitat for humanity of baldwin county, inc. is an ecumenical, christian housing ministry that seeks to eliminate poverty housing by partnering with the community to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action.

—
5
Habitat for Humanity of Effingham County Inc

Habitat is a christian housing ministry that works with people in need to improve the conditions in which they live by providing affordable housing.

—
6
Lazarus House Ministries Inc

Lazarus house is an emergency food pantry serving those people who have food insecurity in the greater wildwood, nj area. we provide food, some toiletries and personal items to many families and individuals during the year.

Human Services
7
Bartlett House Inc

The organization's mission is to house, provide supportive services and an avenue to help break the cycle of homelessness. the organization is committed to providing an environment that meets a person's basic needs in an atmosphere where…

—
8
Habitat for Humanity of La Plata County Inc

To build decent, affordable homes in partnership with families in need.

—
9
Maumee Valley Habitat for Humanity

Seeking to put god's love into action, habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, communities, and hope to realize our vision of a world where everyone has a decent place to live. maumee valley habitat for humanity adheres…

—
10
Bath Area Food Bank

The bath area food bank's mission is to feed food insecure families and individuals with dignity and respect by supplying home cooked meals and a grocery store type atmosphere where client's chose the items they require. it's service area…

Food & Nutrition
11
St Vincents House

Service agency providing comprehensive social services and community outreach programs for the entire family. st. vincent's house serves the disadvantaged, underserved and working poor population of the greater galveston community with…

Human Services
12
Lake County Habitat for Humanity

To eliminate poverty housing and homelessness by working in partnership with people in need. Using donated funds and materials, Habitat volunteers build or rehabilitate homes and sell them at cost to hardworking, low-income families with…

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Matthews House Inc; the most unlike its peers is American Lung Association. 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 9 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
8/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JPMORGAN CHARITABLE GIVING FUND PROGRAM: $4,735,549 · OtherJPMORGAN CHARITABLE GIVING FUND PROGRAMMUTUAL GROUND INC: $121,139 · Human ServicesLAZARUS HOUSE: $30,000 · Human ServicesGRACE PLACE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesBATAVIA INTERFAITH FOOD PANTRY: $22,500 · Food & NutritionST MATTHEWS HOUSE INC: $15,000 · Housing & ShelterHabitat for Humanity of Collier County Inc: $5,000 · Housing & ShelterBATAVIA FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE: $3,000 · EducationAMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION: $500 · Health
Other$4,735,549Human Services$176,139Food & Nutrition$22,500Housing & Shelter$20,000Education$3,000Health$500

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 budgetMUTUAL GROUND INC: $121,139 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetLAZARUS HOUSE: $30,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetGRACE PLACE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBATAVIA INTERFAITH FOOD PANTRY: $22,500 over 1y, 8.4% of budgetST MATTHEWS HOUSE INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHabitat for Humanity of Collier County Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBATAVIA FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE: $3,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetAMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION: $500 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.

National Philanthropic TrustPA9.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Laurel Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Laurel Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • St Matthews House Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
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 9 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Laurel’s filings →

More from the funding graph