Skip to content

· Private foundation

Luhtanen-Howes Charitable Foundation Inc

Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$8k
Granted FY2023
6
Grants FY2023
6
States reached
$2k
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, FY2021 to 2023.

Human Services$22kInternational$3kEducation$3kAnimals$3kCommunity Improvement$3kHealth$3kHousing & Shelter$1k
02FY2023 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$200k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WORLD VISION$2,100
PILOT DOGS INC (L SERVE DOG)$2,000
TUNNELTO TOWERS FOUNDATION T2T$1,000
TURN AWAY NO LONGER INC$1,000
BIKE WALK GREENVILLE$1,000
EVERYONE NEEDS A STEVE$500
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 (FY21–23, $12k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%TURN AWAY NO LONGER INC: $1k → 15%CHILD SAFE MICHIGAN: $5k → 8%TURN AWAY NO LONGER INC: $1k → 15%CHILD SAFE MICHIGAN: $5k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$25k · 4 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +173% since the first grant, against +112% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2023, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
5

Total granted

$25k
$6k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+173%
+112%

Still filing today

75%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 36% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementEducationHealthOther
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

  • CS
    CHILD SAFE MICHIGAN
    2× · 2021–2022 · $10k · revenue +37%
  • BW
    BIKE WALK GREENVILLE
    3× · 2021–2023 · $3k · revenue +173%
  • TA
    TURN AWAY NO LONGER INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $2k · revenue +776%

Funded once

  • LL
    LIVING LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • CW
    CHILDREN WITH DIABETES
    one grant, 2021 · $1k
  • PD
    PILOT DOGS ALLOWAYgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $1k · revenue +615%
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
Leashes of Valor

Our organization's mission is to raise awareness for and provide physical aid and support to disabled us military veterans. our program covers a crucial gap in the industry-a veteran operated organization, that can assist veterans with…

Public Benefit
2
Detective Wenjian Liu Foundation Inc

The foundation's mission embodies the character and values of detective wenjian liu, a new york police department detective who was shot and killed in the line of duty in a marked patrol car in december 2014. the foundation strives to…

Animals
3
Homes for Veterans a Nj Non Profit Corporation

Our mission is to provide a holistic approach to support veterans with disabilities by removing barriers in every aspect of their lives. this includes funding customized, barrier-free home modificationssuch as wheelchair-accessible…

Housing & Shelter
4
Walk the Talk America
Health
5
Wheelchairs for Warriors

Wheelchairs for warriors designs, builds, and delivers custom-fit, complex-rehab mobility solutions to veterans and first responders injured in the line of duty

Human Services
6
CJ3 Foundation

Cj3 foundation provides services, support, and advocacy to united states military service members, veterans/disabled veterans, law enforcement, and emergency responders who need/require assistance, and then connecting them with resources…

Human Services
7
Tadsaw Inc

Tadsaw inc mission statement is to provide for the training of a medical alert service dog team (one veteran/client and one rescue/shelter/personal dog equals one team) to improve the veteran/client's quality of life and, in many cases,…

Animals
8
Team Viac

WORKING TO HELP REDUCE VETERAN SUICIDE We are currently serving 55 local veterans and a growiing number from the country.

Public Benefit
9
For Veterans Sake Foundation

For veteran's sake foundation is here to provide an alternative solution to dealing with pts (post traumatic stress). we use a combination of a (non-therapeutic) neuro-traumatic resourcing, service dogs and consulting. working with the…

Health
10
Aerial Recovery

Aerial recovery's mission is to save lives and stop evil. through the creation and deployment of humanitarian special operators, aerial recovery brings together selected veterans, first responders, and mission-qualified civilians who,…

—
11
The Brain Tumor Network Inc

The brain tumor network (btn) is dedicated to providing compassionate, personalized navigation services to brain tumor patients and caregivers. btn also assists patients in finding clinical trials that may be an appropriate match for them.…

Health
12
Frontline to Field Foundation

Frontline to field is a nonprofit organization founded from the hearts of two individuals deeply committed to the well-being of those who serve and sacrifice for others. inspired by their personal connections to the military, first…

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Everyone Needs a Steve Inc. 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 13 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)
4
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

METHODIST CHILDRENS HOME: $10,000 · OtherMETHODIST CHILDRENS HOMELIVING LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER: $2,000 · OtherLIVING LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTERPILOT DOGS INC (L SERVE DOG): $2,000 · OtherPILOT DOGS INC (L SERVE DOG)CHILDREN WITH DIABETES: $1,000 · OtherCHILDREN WITH DIABETESPILOT DOGS ALLOWAY: $1,000 · OtherPILOT DOGS ALLOWAYTUNNELTO TOWERS FOUNDATION T2T: $1,000 · OtherTUNNELTO TOWERS FOUNDATION T2TCHILD SAFE MICHIGAN: $10,000 · Human ServicesCHILD SAFE MICHIGANTURN AWAY NO LONGER INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesTURN AWAY NO LONGER INCEVERYONE NEEDS A STEVE INC: $500 · Human ServicesWORLD VISION INC: $3,100 · InternationalWORLD VIS…BIKE WALK GREENVILLE: $3,000 · Community ImprovementBIKE WALK…STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $1,000 · EducationTHE BRAIN ANEURYSM FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 · Health
Other$17,000Human Services$12,500International$3,100Community Improvement$3,000Education$1,000Health$1,000

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 budgetCHILD SAFE MICHIGAN: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetWORLD VISION INC: $3,100 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBIKE WALK GREENVILLE: $3,000 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetTURN AWAY NO LONGER INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetPILOT DOGS ALLOWAY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BRAIN ANEURYSM FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Luhtanen-Howes Charitable Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Luhtanen-Howes Charitable Foundation Inc. 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 13 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Luhtanen-Howes’ filings →

    More from the funding graph