Skip to content
The HOPE Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The HOPE Charitable Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$72k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

International$379kAnimals$104kEnvironment$40kScience & Tech$25kEducation$25kPublic Safety & Disaster$5k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $7k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $65k
$10,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ACUMEN FUND INC$30,000
SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELT$15,000
WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION$10,000
AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND$10,000
PALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY$5,000
INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE INC$1,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 90% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION: $10k → 8%CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC: $5k → 16%PALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY: $5k → 8%MOUNTAIN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $5k → 9%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: $20k → 10%SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELT: $15k → 10%ACUMEN FUND INC: $36k → 17%UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION FOR UNHCR: $10k → 14%AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $10k → 10%WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION: $5k → 8%PALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY: $5k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: $20k → 10%SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELT: $15k → 10%ACUMEN FUND INC: $30k → 17%UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION FOR UNHCR: $10k → 14%AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $10k → 10%WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION: $5k → 8%PALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY: $5k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: $20k → 10%SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELT: $15k → 10%ACUMEN FUND INC: $30k → 17%UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION FOR UNHCR: $10k → 14%AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $5k → 10%WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION: $5k → 8%PALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY: $4k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: $20k → 10%SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELT: $10k → 10%ACUMEN FUND INC: $30k → 17%UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION FOR UNHCR: $5k → 14%PALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY: $4k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: $11k → 10%SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELT: $5k → 10%ACUMEN FUND INC: $25k → 17%CENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL: $5k → 14%PALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY: $4k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: $10k → 10%SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELT: $5k → 10%ACUMEN FUND INC: $20k → 17%UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION FOR UNHCR: $10k → 14%PALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY: $4k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: $9k → 10%SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELT: $5k → 10%ACUMEN FUND INC: $15k → 17%UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION FOR UNHCR: $10k → 14%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: $7k → 10%SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELT: $5k → 10%ACUMEN FUND INC: $15k → 17%INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: $5k → 10%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$562k · 8 repeat orgs$15k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +69% since the first grant, against -56% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$562k
$15k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+69%
-56%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalEnvironmentAnimalsScience & TechEducationOther
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

  • AF
    ACUMEN FUND INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $201k · revenue +56%
  • IR
    International Rescue Committee INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $123k · revenue +81%
  • TS
    THE SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $75k · revenue +69%

Funded once

  • MF
    Mountain Fire Foundation
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue -99%
  • CA
    CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue -2%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue -56%
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
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
2
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
3
Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Action Network (RAN) works toward a world where the rights and dignity of all communities are respected and where healthy forests, a stable climate and wild biodiversity are protected and celebrated.

Environment
4
Rainforest Foundation Inc

The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.

Environment
5
Chile-California Council

The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…

International
6
Actionaid Usa

Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…

Social Science
7
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
8
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
9
American Forests

Protection and expansion of threatened urban and wildland forest ecosystems. See Part III

Environment
10
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
11
Amazon Watch Inc

To protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with Indigenous communities in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability, and the preservation of the Amazon Basin's…

Environment
12
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Carbon Removal; the most unlike its peers is Mountain Fire Foundation. 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

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

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)
10/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ACUMEN FUND INC: $201,000 · InternationalACUMEN FUND INCInternational Rescue Committee INC: $122,618 · InternationalInternational Rescue Committee INCUnited States Association for UNHCR: $55,000 · InternationalUnited States Association for UNHCRTHE SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $75,000 · AnimalsTHE SAN FRANCISCO SO…PALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY: $29,100 · AnimalsPALO ALTO HUMANE SOC…COOL EARTH ACTION USA INC: $29,730 · EnvironmentCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC: $5,000 · EnvironmentCENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL: $5,000 · EnvironmentWOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION: $25,000 · Science & TechAMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $25,000 · EducationMountain Fire Foundation: $5,000 · Other
International$378,618Animals$104,100Environment$39,730Science & Tech$25,000Education$25,000Other$5,000

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 budgetACUMEN FUND INC: $201,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $122,618 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $75,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetUnited States Association for UNHCR: $55,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetPALO ALTO HUMANE SOCIETY: $29,100 over 7y, 2.2% of budgetWOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION: $25,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $25,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMountain Fire Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL: $5,000 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.

Donor Advised Charita…
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCA7.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 The HOPE Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The HOPE Charitable Foundation. 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 63%
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: 63% of 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)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 11 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.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on HOPE’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