· Private foundation
Lewis-Clark Valley Healthcare Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k34 grants · $163k
- $10k–50k34 grants · $452k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $588k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Family Promise of the Palouse | $91,776 |
| LC Valley Youth Resource Center Inc | $85,000 |
| Snake River Community Clinic | $84,000 |
| Upriver Youth Leadership Council In | $82,824 |
| The Idaho Foodbank | $70,000 |
| Interlink Inc | $64,400 |
| Community Health Association of Spo | $60,000 |
| St Vincent de Paul Society | $50,000 |
| CRAIGMONT QUICK RESPONSE RESCUE UNI | $40,000 |
| Sojourners Alliance | $30,000 |
| Family Promise of the LC Valley | $25,000 |
| VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER | $25,000 |
| First Christian Church | $25,000 |
| CIRCLES OF CARING ADULT DAY HEALTH | $25,000 |
| ROSALIA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSO | $12,000 |
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, $514k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
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 7% of Lewis-Clark Valley Healthcare 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. Read by recipient address, 64% of the giving stays in ID; read by stated purpose it is 61% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 +23% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
103 repeat relationships — 40 still active in FY2025, 63 since wound down; 31 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $245k 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
- LVLC VALLEY YOUTH RESOURCE CENTER INC5× · 2020–2025 · $434k · revenue +55% · 25% of their budget
- IFIDAHO FOODBANK WAREHOUSE6× · 2019–2025 · $355k · revenue +35%
- IIINTERLINK INC8× · 2018–2025 · $338k · revenue +140% · 41% of their budget
Funded once
- CHCHAS Healthone grant, 2020 · $110k
- PHPublic Health Idaho North Central Done grant, 2019 · $84k
- SPSuicide Prevention of the Inland Noone grant, 2023 · $80k
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.
To provide nutritious meals and social activities at the center as well as home delivered meals and transportation for seniors
We serve the senior citizens of Southern Bingham County, and the Citizens of Aberdeen, Idaho Meals on Wheels and congregate meals onsite.
Provide services to people before, throughout, and after an unplanned pregnancy.
To help families with children in our community who are situationally homeless achieve sustainable independence through a community based response by providing temporary housing, usually 60-90 days, along with case management.
Outsiders Inn (OI) provides peer-lead homeless services and operates multiple shelter programs with a recovery focused model in the Clark County, WA area.
The mission of Lake Chelan Food Bank is to treat each person we serve with dignity and respect and to provide balanced and varied options that give each person the liberty to meet the specific food needs for themsevles and/or their family.
Offer accessible mental health services to the walla walla community, while creating an innovative learning environment for future providers.
To provide mental health and chemical dependency prevention and treatment programs in Whitman County, Washington.
Serving senior citizens in area
Federal grants and contracts were used to provide direct community and public health services within Native American communities in Northwest Washington
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Willow Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is Colfax Rotary Club. 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 18 years old; the field is 22. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 11% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
74 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. 74 of the 254 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 SNAKE RIVER COMMUNITY CLINIC INC ↗
- Who funds LC VALLEY YOUTH RESOURCE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds IDAHO FOODBANK WAREHOUSE ↗
- Who funds INTERLINK INC ↗
- Who funds Innovia Foundation ↗
- Who funds PULLMAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WINDING WATERS MEDICAL CLINIC ↗
- Who funds SYRINGA HOSPITAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UPRIVER YOUTH LEADERSHIP COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds FAMILY PROMISE OF THE PALOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds First Step 4 Life Recovery Center LTD ↗
- Who funds SOJOURNERS' ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds Backyard Harvest Inc ↗
- Who funds GINA QUESENBERRY BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Homes of Hope A Christian Nonprofit Corporation ↗
- Who funds CAMAS PRAIRIE FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds UPPER CLEARWATER COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Wallowa Valley Center for Wellness Inc ↗
- Who funds WILLOW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Valley Community Center ↗
- Who funds ROTARY FOUNDATION OF WALLOWA COUNTY ↗
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 Avista Foundation · Innovia Foundation · Idaho Foodbank Warehouse · Idaho Community Foundation Inc · The Deatley Family Foundation · Brien & Shelly Deatley Family Foundation · Latah County Community Foundation · Twin County United Way Inc · Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation Inc · Blue Mountain Community Foundation · Harold & Helen Shepherd Foundation · Greater Columbia Accountable Community of Health
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 Lewis-Clark Valley Healthcare 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.
- Wallowa Mt Hells Canyon Trails Asso — 62% of income from government
- Building Healthy Families — 41% of income from government
- Joseph Branch Trail Consortium — 34% of income from government
- Wallowa Valley Center for Wellness Inc — 25% of income from government
- Winding Waters Medical Clinic — 11% of income from government
- Rotary Foundation of Wallowa County — 0% of income from government
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 Lewis-Clark Valley Healthcare Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Lewis-Clark Valley Healthcare 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.