Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Orion & Emma B Hurlbut Tr FBO Memorial Fd

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$500k
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 51% of ORION & EMMA B HURLBUT TR FBO MEMORIAL FD’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $350k
  • $250k+2 grants · $785k
$150,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$23M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHATTANOOGA TUMOR CLINIC$500,000
ERLANGER HEALTH FOUNDATION$285,000
AUSTIN HATCHER FOUNDATION FOR PEDIATRIC CANCER$150,000
CHI MEMORIAL FOUNDATION$150,000
WELCOME HOME OF CHATTANOOGA$50,000
ST JUDES RESEARCH HOSPITAL$25,000
THE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT$20,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $1.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%HOSPICE OF CHATTANOOGA: $300k → 12%HOSPICE OF CHATTANOOGA: $300k → 12%HOSPICE OF CHATTANOOGA: $200k → 12%HOSPICE OF CHATTANOOGA: $200k → 12%HOSPICE OF CHATTANOOGA: $200k → 12%HOSPICE OF CHATTANOOGA: $100k → 12%THE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT: $20k → 12%THE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT: $20k → 12%THE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT: $20k → 12%THE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT: $20k → 12%THE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT: $15k → 12%THE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT: $15k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 23% of Orion & Emma B Hurlbut Tr FBO Memorial Fd’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, 100% of the giving stays in TN; read by stated purpose it is 77% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

Orion & Emma B Hurlbut Tr FBO Memorial Fdlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$9.4M · 8 repeat orgs$231k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +89% since the first grant, against +54% for the ones you funded once.

8 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
6

Total granted

$9.4M
$231k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+89%
+54%

Still filing today

88%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
HealthHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther

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

  • MH
    MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOUNDATION INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +179%
  • CC
    CHATTANOOGA CANCER SUPPORT SERVICES
    6× · 2017–2025 · $2.3M · revenue +74% · 40% of their budget
  • WH
    WELCOME HOME OF CHATTANOOGA
    6× · 2020–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +285% · 79% of their budget

Funded once

  • GC
    GREATER CHATTANOOGA COLON CANCER FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $75k
  • AP
    ASPIRE PALLATIVE CARE SERVICES
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
  • BC
    BREAST CANCER SUPPORT SERVICES 2019 EMERGENCY FUND
    one grant, 2019 · $50k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Targeting Resistance in Cancer Cooperative
Health
2
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
3
The Johns Hopkins Hospital

For more than 125 years, the mission of the johns hopkins hospital has been to lead the world in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and to train tomorrow's great physicians, nurses and scientists. above all, we aim to provide the…

Health
4
J Walter Juckett Cancer Research Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
5
Imagine a Cure Cancer Treatment
Health
6
Community Cancer Research Foundation Inc

To reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in our community by supporting and advancing cancer detection, diagnosis, treatment and education/prevention efforts within the community healthcare system and by promoting the acquisition of…

7
Memorial Health Care System Inc

As an affiliate of commonspirit health, we make the healing presence of god known in our world by improving the health of the people we serve, especially those who are vulnerable, while we advance social justice for all.

8
Oncology Consultants Cancer Research Fun
Health
9
Pano Koumantaros Cancer Research Fund Inc
Philanthropy
10
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o

Health
11
Atlanta Cancer Care Foundation Inc

To reduce the additional stress that a cancer diagnosis could bring by providing living expense assistance to patients in financial need.

Health
12
Lehigh Valley Hospital

Our mission is to heal, comfort and care for the people of our community by providing advanced and compassionate health care of superior quality and value, supported by education and research.

Health

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chattanooga Cancer Support Services and the most unlike its peers is The Happy Shoes Project. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the grantee network

9 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 15 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOUNDATION INC — $2,370,000 · OtherMEMORIAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOUNDATION INCCHATTANOOGA CANCER SUPPORT SERVICES — $2,297,500 · OtherCHATTANOOGA CANCER SUPPORT SERVICESERLANGER HEALTH FOUNDATION — $524,447 · OtherERLANGER HEALTH FOUNDATION+5 more — $156,000 · OtherAUSTIN HATCHER FOUNDATION FOR PEDIATRIC CANCER — $1,153,657 · PhilanthropyAUSTIN HATCHER FOUNDAT…The Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga Inc — $882,845 · PhilanthropyThe Community Foundati…WELCOME HOME OF CHATTANOOGA — $1,445,000 · HealthWELCOME HOME OF CH…ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC — $150,000 · HealthST JUDE CHILDREN'S…GREATER CHATTANOOGA COLON CANCER FOUNDATION — $75,000 · HealthJOURNEY HEALTH FOUNDATION — $1,300,000 · Human ServicesJOURNEY HEALTH …THE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT — $110,000 · Human ServicesTHE HAPPY SHOES…
Other$5,347,947Philanthropy$2,036,502Health$1,670,000Human Services$1,410,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetMEMORIAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOUNDATION INC — $2,370,000 over 8y, 17% of budgetCHATTANOOGA CANCER SUPPORT SERVICES — $2,297,500 over 6y, 40% of budgetWELCOME HOME OF CHATTANOOGA — $1,445,000 over 6y, 79% of budgetJOURNEY HEALTH FOUNDATION — $1,300,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetAUSTIN HATCHER FOUNDATION FOR PEDIATRIC CANCER — $1,153,657 over 7y, 15% of budgetThe Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga Inc — $882,845 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC — $150,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT — $110,000 over 6y, 25% of budget
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 MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOUNDATION INC
  • Who funds CHATTANOOGA CANCER SUPPORT SERVICES
  • Who funds WELCOME HOME OF CHATTANOOGA
  • Who funds JOURNEY HEALTH FOUNDATION
  • Who funds AUSTIN HATCHER FOUNDATION FOR PEDIATRIC CANCER
  • Who funds The Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga Inc
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC
  • Who funds THE HAPPY SHOES PROJECT
  • Who funds GREATER CHATTANOOGA COLON CANCER FOUNDATION

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.

Weldon F Osborne Foundation IncTN15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Weldon F Osborne Foundation Inc · Schillhahn-Huskey Foundation · Chattanooga Christian Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable 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 Orion & Emma B Hurlbut Tr FBO Memorial Fd 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 15 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph