Skip to content
The James B Loveland Memorial Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The James B Loveland Memorial Foundation

$56k
Granted FY2019
6
Grants FY2019
4
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

98% of The James B Loveland Memorial Foundation’s FY2023 grant dollars went to The Pi Foundation Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2023 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year The James B Loveland Memorial Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $56k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

6
’17
5
’18
5
’19
4
’20
1
’21
2
’22
1
’23

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

01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Philanthropy$925kEducation$405kHuman Services$65kRecreation & Sports$40kYouth Development$40kHealth$26kReligion$10kArts & Culture$10kOther$0
02FY2019 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k2 grants · $6k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $50k
$10,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$972
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY MEN'S GOLF$20,000
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY - HAWAII$10,000
DISTINGUISHED YOUNG WOMEN FOUNDATION$10,000
UTAH METROPOLITAN BALLET$10,000
PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE$5,000
BUNDLED BLESSINGS FERTILITY FOUNDATION$750
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 (FY17–20, $23k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 78% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%FREEDOM HUNTERS: $5k → 6%PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE: $8k → 8%PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE: $5k → 8%PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE: $5k → 8%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.

Which US states its grants reach

ID
MT
NY
CA
UT
CO
HI
AL
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.
$503k · 7 repeat orgs$133k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2019, 3 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, 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
9

Total granted

$503k
$78k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+88%

Still filing today

57%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
Public BenefitHuman ServicesPhilanthropyEducationYouth DevelopmentHealthOther
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

  • KO
    Kids on the Move Inc
    3× · 2018–2023 · $60k · revenue +86%
  • DY
    DISTINGUISHED YOUNG WOMEN FOUNDATION
    2× · 2018–2019 · $20k · revenue +1%
  • PH
    PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE
    3× · 2017–2019 · $18k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • MC
    Mountainlands Community Health Centergraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +88%
  • AJ
    AMERICA'S JUNIOR MISS PAGEANT INC
    one grant, 2017 · $15k
  • CT
    CALLED TO SERVE
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
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
One Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Iron One Foundation
Education
3
Utah Motorsports Foundation
Philanthropy
4
Keep On Pushing Foundation
Human Services
5
Max Factor Family Foundation
—
6
Five Together Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Ogden Family Foundation
Education
8
One Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
9
Playitforward Foundation
Recreation & Sports
10
The J Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Never Give Up Foundation
Health
12
The Pink Journey Foundation
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Pi Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Onset Gives. 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 24 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE PI FOUNDATION INC: $911,892 · PhilanthropyTHE PI FOUNDATION INC+2 more: $10,506 · PhilanthropyUTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY: $300,000 · OtherUTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITYUTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY MEN'S GOLF: $40,000 · OtherUTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY MEN'S GOLFBRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY-HAWAII: $30,000 · OtherBRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY-HAWAIIDISTINGUISHED YOUNG WOMEN OF UTAH: $20,000 · Other+9 more: $62,750 · Other+9 moreKids on the Move Inc: $60,000 · EducationOPERATION PAY IT FORWARD: $35,000 · Public BenefitCONDITION ONE FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Public BenefitPEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE: $17,500 · Human ServicesFREEDOM HUNTERS: $5,000 · Human ServicesDISTINGUISHED YOUNG WOMEN FOUNDATION: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentMountainlands Community Health Center: $20,000 · HealthUtah Metropolitan Ballet: $10,000 · Arts & Culture
Philanthropy$922,398Other$452,750Education$60,000Public Benefit$40,000Human Services$22,500Youth Development$20,000Health$20,000Arts & Culture$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE PI FOUNDATION INC: $911,892 over 1y, 12% of budgetKids on the Move Inc: $60,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetOPERATION PAY IT FORWARD: $35,000 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetDISTINGUISHED YOUNG WOMEN FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetMountainlands Community Health Center: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE: $17,500 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetUtah Metropolitan Ballet: $10,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetONSET GIVES: $7,756 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCONDITION ONE FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetFREEDOM HUNTERS: $5,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetFIVE 12 FOUNDATION: $2,750 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetBundled Blessings Fertility Foundation: $750 over 1y, 0.4% 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 THE PI FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Kids on the Move Inc ↗
  • Who funds OPERATION PAY IT FORWARD ↗
  • Who funds DISTINGUISHED YOUNG WOMEN FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Mountainlands Community Health Center ↗
  • Who funds PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE ↗
  • Who funds Utah Metropolitan Ballet ↗
  • Who funds ONSET GIVES ↗
  • Who funds CONDITION ONE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FREEDOM HUNTERS ↗
  • Who funds FIVE 12 FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Bundled Blessings Fertility Foundation ↗

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.

The Ashton Family Fou…George S and Dolores …Sorenson Legacy Found…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Ashton Family FoundationUT13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ashton Family Foundation · George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · Sorenson Legacy Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation 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 James B Loveland Memorial Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The James B Loveland Memorial Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%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 · 0–75%
    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 24 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2019, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on James B Loveland Memorial’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