Skip to content
The Boeschoten Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Boeschoten Foundation

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.

$35k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Health$155kHuman Services$40kEducation$30kFood & Nutrition$15kHousing & Shelter$15kPublic Safety & Disaster$15kYouth Development$15kReligion$14kOther$0
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
$30,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$995k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON$30,000
SPASTIC PARAPLEGIA FOUNDATION$5,000
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 (FY20–22, $15k) 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%HOPELINK: $5k → 9%HOPELINK: $5k → 9%HOPELINK: $5k → 9%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.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$250k · 13 repeat orgs$67k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +53% since the first grant, against -6% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
4

Total granted

$250k
$37k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+53%
-6%

Still filing today

62%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 14% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • NK
    NORTHWEST KIDNEY CENTERS
    4× · 2020–2023 · $20k · revenue +11%
  • MF
    MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ALASKA & WASHINGTON
    3× · 2020–2022 · $15k · revenue +53%
  • FH
    Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
    3× · 2020–2023 · $15k · revenue +209%

Funded once

  • FO
    FRIENDS OF YOUTH
    one grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue -6%
  • SJ
    ST JUDE PARISH
    one grant, 2020 · $14k
  • L
    LALMBA
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
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
Uw Physicians Network

To improve the health of the public.

Education
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
Emergency Medical Services at the University of Washington
Health
4
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

The children's hospital of philadelphia, the oldest hospital in the united states dedicated exclusively to pediatrics, strives to be the world leader in the advancement of health care for children by integrating excellent patient care,…

Health
5
Seattle Children's Foundation

Seattle children's foundation exists to improve the quality of health care services to infants, children, and adolescents through contributions to organizations providing health care services, research and education.

—
6
Puget Sound Kidney Centers

To enhance the quality of life for those with kidney disease through outstanding dialysis care, education and community support.

Health
7
One Community Health

Advance health and social justice for all members of our community.

—
8
Bloodworks

Saving lives through research, innovation, education and excellence in blood, medical and laboratory services in partnership with our community.

Health
9
Friends of Kexp

Kexp's mission is to enrich your life by championing music and discovery.

Youth Development
10
North Olympic Healthcare Network

To provide patient-centered, quality-driven, whole-person healthcare services, accessible to everyone in our community.

Health
11
Seattle Children's Healthcare System

Seattle children's healthcare system (schs) is engaged in activities relating to the provision of health care services to infants, children, and adolescents, delivering and improving the delivery and the quality of those services through…

Health
12
Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho

To provide exceptional reproductive and complementary health care services, honest education, and advocacy for all.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northwest Kidney Centers; the most unlike its peers is Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. 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

9 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. 9 of the 18 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SPASTIC PARAPLEGIA FOUNDATION: $70,000 · OtherSPASTIC PARAPLEGIA FOUNDATIONUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $30,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONMDA ASSOCIATION: $15,000 · OtherMDA ASSOCIATIONOPAL HOUSE: $15,000 · OtherOPAL HOUSESALVATION ARMY: $15,000 · OtherSALVATION ARMYNORTHWEST HARVEST EMM: $15,000 · OtherNORTHWEST HARVEST EMMPKD Foundation: $15,000 · OtherPKD FoundationST JUDE PARISH: $14,000 · OtherST JUDE PARISHLALAMBA ASSOC: $10,000 · Other+2 more: $7,500 · OtherNORTHWEST KIDNEY CENTERS: $20,000 · HealthNORTHWEST KIDNEY CENTERSMAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ALASKA & WASHINGTON: $15,000 · HealthMAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ALASKA &…Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $15,000 · HealthFred Hutchinson Cancer CenterMEDIC ONE FOUNDATION: $15,000 · HealthMEDIC ONE FOUNDATIONSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $15,000 · HealthSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITALFRIENDS OF YOUTH: $15,000 · HealthFRIENDS OF YOUTHHOPELINK: $15,000 · Human Services
Other$206,500Health$95,000Human Services$15,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNORTHWEST KIDNEY CENTERS: $20,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ALASKA & WASHINGTON: $15,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMEDIC ONE FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetHOPELINK: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHWEST HARVEST EMM: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPKD Foundation: $15,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF YOUTH: $15,000 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.

  • Who funds NORTHWEST KIDNEY CENTERS ↗
  • Who funds MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ALASKA & WASHINGTON ↗
  • Who funds Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center ↗
  • Who funds MEDIC ONE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds HOPELINK ↗
  • Who funds NORTHWEST HARVEST EMM ↗
  • Who funds PKD Foundation ↗
  • Who funds SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF YOUTH ↗

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.

Seattle FoundationThe Blackbaud Giving …Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Seattle FoundationWA13.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 The Boeschoten Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Boeschoten Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%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 · 0–50%
    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 18 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 2024, released 2024. 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 no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Boeschoten’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