· Public charity
Onehope Foundation
ONEHOPE FOUNDATION is the matchmaker between for-profit companies and individuals who want to give back and nonprofit organizations that have been thoroughly vetted the foundation acts as a pass through organization for all of the donations that come into the organization.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2020.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE END FUND | $751,388 |
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 (FY17–17, $36k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 69% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 63% of Onehope 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, 23% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 0% — 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 +80% since the first grant, against +9% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2020, 14 since wound down.
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 FY2020, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- TEThe End Fund Inc3× · 2018–2020 · $787k · revenue +227%
- WIWHYHUNGER INC2× · 2018–2019 · $312k · revenue +68%
- TATHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS3× · 2017–2019 · $161k · revenue +80%
Funded once
PENCILS OF PROMISE INCORPORATEDone grant, 2017 · $36k · revenue -75%- RCREDEEMER CHURCH OF ARLINGTONone grant, 2017 · $32k
- WFWhole Foods Market Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +261%
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.
Our mission is to break down barriers to als research to find effective treatments. by uniting academia, the pharma and biotech industry, government, venture capital, related nonprofits, and the als community, we aim to overcome the…
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
To support cancer research and public education relating to prevention, earlier diagnosis, better treatments and ultimately, a cure for cancer.
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
To define and advance quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care and prevention so all people can live better lives.
To aid the alliance for clinical trials in oncology national clinical trials cooperative group and support the clinical trials and laboratory research of the alliance, as well as efforts to educate the medical community on methods of…
To help conquer cancer and other diseases through the application of biostatistical principles and innovative data management methods.
Inspired by the gift of donation from our communities, allosource responsibly provides innovative cellular and tissue allografts to advance patient healing.
The mission of the wikimedia foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. (see schedule…
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
Our vision is to reimagine everyday giving to help charities. our mission is to enable the world's leading online platforms to create opportunities for everyday charitable giving. in doing so, we ensure our programs are trustworthy,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Edward Charles Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Whole Foods Market Foundation. 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 21 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
26 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. 26 of the 30 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
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 The End Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds WHYHUNGER INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds TEAM RUBICON INC ↗
- Who funds GATEWAY FOR CANCER RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds TREVOR PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds OLE HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROOM TO READ ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds PENCILS OF PROMISE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds WILDAID INC ↗
- Who funds ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Whole Foods Market Foundation ↗
- Who funds EDWARD CHARLES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CRISIS TEXT LINE INC ↗
- Who funds CHRYSALIS CENTER ↗
- Who funds PS ARTS ↗
- Who funds AUTISM CARE TODAY ↗
- Who funds NYLE DIMARCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COUNTRY MUSIC ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAS FOUNDATION FOR CHESS ↗
- Who funds THE HEART FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THREE SQUARE ↗
- Who funds THE OVARIAN CANCER RESEARCH FUND INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds WATSI INC ↗
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: Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Network for Good · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Onehope 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.
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 Onehope Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Onehope 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.