Skip to content
ProVision Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

ProVision Foundation Inc

Provision Foundation exists to benefit,perform the functions of and carry out the purposes of the National Christian Charitable Foundation, Inc.

$1.8M
Granted FY2017
5
Grants FY2017
2
States reached
$1.2M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

52% of ProVision Foundation Inc’s FY2023 grant dollars went to Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2023 names 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2017, the last year ProVision Foundation Inc named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $2M. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

5
’17
4
’18
4
’19
3
’20
4
’21
2
’22
3
’23

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0180% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Health$1.2MCommunity Improvement$711kPhilanthropy$132kHousing & Shelter$95kReligion$44kInternational$26kEducation$20kYouth Development$10kOther$0
02FY2017 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2017

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $189k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.6M
$188,728
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Proton Therapy Center LLC$1,200,000
Equitas Group Inc$407,004
Rephidim Inc$188,728
National Christian Foundation$10,000
Restoration House$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 (FY21–22, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Restoration House of East TN: $10k → 12%Restoration House of East TN: $10k → 12%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.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 7 repeat orgs$1.7M to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2017, 3 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2017 (too recent to call). Read against FY2017, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
8

Total granted

$2.0M
$1.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-24%
+48%

Still filing today

57%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 31% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $44k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
HealthReligionHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentEducationOther
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

  • NC
    NATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $40k · revenue ×103
  • P
    PLIES
    2× · 2021–2023 · $20k · revenue +73%
  • TR
    THE RESTORATION HOUSE OF EAST TENNESSEE
    2× · 2021–2022 · $20k · revenue +306%

Funded once

  • TP
    THE PROTON THERAPY CENTER LLCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $1.2M · revenue +246%
  • 4L
    4MS LLC
    one grant, 2018 · $377k
  • CL
    CORE LEADERSHIP
    one grant, 2023 · $44k · revenue +16% · 49% of their budget
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
Revelation Enterprise
—
2
The Barnabas Group Ltd
Religion
3
Revision Ministries Inc
Religion
4
Euthus Ministries
Human Services
5
Remend Inc
Health
6
Reach International Corporation
Arts & Culture
7
Global Gospel Initiative Inc
Religion
8
Jericho Road Inc
Community Improvement
9
Reachable Reconciliation Inc
—
10
Enreturn Corp
Human Services
11
A2 Ministries International Ltd
Religion
12
Recidiviz Inc
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Restoration House of East Tennessee; the most unlike its peers is Rephidim 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

12 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. 12 of the 16 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Rephidim Inc: $1,103,391 · OtherRephidim IncEquitas Group Inc: $672,054 · OtherEquitas Group Inc4MS LLC: $377,223 · Other4MS LLC+3 more: $39,000 · OtherTHE PROTON THERAPY CENTER LLC: $1,200,000 · HealthTHE PROTON THERAPY CENTER LLC+1 more: $16,210 · HealthDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $70,910 · PhilanthropyNATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION INC: $40,000 · PhilanthropyCORE LEADERSHIP: $44,293 · ReligionStrategic Cities Foundation: $38,986 · ReligionTHE RESTORATION HOUSE: $75,000 · Housing & ShelterPLIES: $20,000 · EducationTHE RESTORATION HOUSE OF EAST TENNESSEE: $20,000 · Human ServicesTHE CHANGE CENTER: $10,000 · Youth Development
Other$2,191,668Health$1,216,210Philanthropy$110,910Religion$83,279Housing & Shelter$75,000Education$20,000Human Services$20,000Youth Development$10,000

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 budgetTHE PROTON THERAPY CENTER LLC: $1,200,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetRephidim Inc: $1,103,391 over 5y, 76% of budgetEquitas Group Inc: $672,054 over 2y, 57% of budgetTHE RESTORATION HOUSE: $75,000 over 4y, 3.6% of budgetDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $70,910 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCORE LEADERSHIP: $44,293 over 1y, 49% of budgetStrategic Cities Foundation: $38,986 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetPLIES: $20,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetTHE RESTORATION HOUSE OF EAST TENNESSEE: $20,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetSECOND MILE HAITI: $16,210 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetTHE CHANGE CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% 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.

Natl Christian Charit…
Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA9.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc

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 ProVision Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from ProVision Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 ProVision Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to ProVision Foundation Inc 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 16 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $48k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2017, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on ProVision’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