Skip to content
Lippincott Family Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

Lippincott Family Foundation

To perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of the arizona community foundation, an az nonprofit corporation, so long as the arizona community foundation, inc.

$111k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Health$184kEducation$150kHuman Services$99kHousing & Shelter$16k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $105,600, the rows itemized in this filing. The $110,600 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $5,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $56k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$28,600
Median grant
2
States reached
$7.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MENTAL WELLNESS CENTER$50,000
ARIZONA WOMEN'S RECOVERY CENTER$28,600
FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION$17,000
HELPING HANDS FOR SINGLE MOMS$10,000
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, $170k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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%CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCES INC: $10k → 15%Child and Family Resources Inc: $6k → 15%CHRYSALIS SHELTERS FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INC: $20k → 11%CHRYSALIS SHELTERS FOR VICTIMS oF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INC: $16k → 11%FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $17k → 11%FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $17k → 11%FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $17k → 11%FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $17k → 11%FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $17k → 11%FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $17k → 11%FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $15k → 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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$399k · 6 repeat orgs$50k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +92% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

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

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
1

Total granted

$399k
$50k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+92%
0%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 53% 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
Human ServicesHealthCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • FS
    FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION
    7× · 2019–2025 · $117k · revenue +92%
  • AW
    ARIZONA WOMEN'S RECOVERY CENTER
    8× · 2018–2025 · $111k · revenue +37%
  • HH
    HELPING HANDS FOR SINGLE MOMS
    7× · 2019–2025 · $67k · revenue +116%

Funded once

  • MH
    MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
    one grant, 2025 · $50k · revenue 0%
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
04the grantee network

7 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $117,300 · Human ServicesFRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATIONChrysalis Shelter for Victims of Domestic Violence Inc: $36,000 · Human ServicesChrysalis Shelter for Victims of Domestic …CHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC: $16,300 · Human ServicesCHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INCARIZONA WOMEN'S RECOVERY CENTER: $110,700 · OtherARIZONA WOMEN'S RECOVERY CE…A NEW LEAF: $51,830 · HealthA NEW LEAFMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY: $50,000 · HealthMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION…HELPING HANDS FOR SINGLE MOMS: $66,500 · Community ImprovementHELPING HANDS FO…
Human Services$169,600Other$110,700Health$101,830Community Improvement$66,500

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $117,300 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetARIZONA WOMEN'S RECOVERY CENTER: $110,700 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetHELPING HANDS FOR SINGLE MOMS: $66,500 over 7y, 1.9% of budgetA NEW LEAF: $51,830 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetChrysalis Shelter for Victims of Domestic Violence Inc: $36,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC: $16,300 over 2y, 0.1% 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…Charities Aid Foundat…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Arizona Community FoundationAZ13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Arizona Community Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · 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 Lippincott Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lippincott Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Lippincott Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Lippincott Family 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.

    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 7 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 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 Lippincott 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