· Private foundation
The Lift 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Huntsman Mental Health Foundation | $25,000 |
| Academy for Creating Enterprise | $20,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–21, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 24% of The Lift Foundation’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, 88% of the giving stays in UT; read by stated purpose it is 65% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +140% since the first grant, against +69% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 44% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- AFAcademy for Creating Enterprise4× · 2018–2024 · $65k · revenue +62%
- OSORPHANAGE SUPPORT SERVICES ORGANIZATION4× · 2017–2022 · $15k · revenue +243%
- NNNAMI National2× · 2017–2018 · $14k · revenue +543%
Funded once
- FEFOUNDATION ESCALERA INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +69%
- PFPULMONARY FIBROSIS FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · $1k · revenue +3%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Dedicated to improving the quality of life of myeloma patients while working toward prevention and a cure.
(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.
Amfar is dedicated to ending the global aids epidemic through innovative research. (see schedule o)
We will cure ms while empowering people affected by ms to live their best lives.
Through education, support, and advocacy, nami minnesota champions justice, dignity, and respect for all individuals and families affected by mental illnesses. to serve that mission, nami minnesota works with individuals with mental…
NAMI California is a Grass Roots Organization of Families and Individuals whose lives have been affected by serious mental illness. We advocate for lives of quality and respect, without discrimination and stigma, for all constituents. We…
Nami westside los angeles is a grass roots organization of families and individuals whose lives have been affected by serious mental illness. we provide advocacy, education, and support for those with mental illness and their families in…
Esperanza united's mission is to mobilize latinas and latino communities to end domestic violence.
Preeclampsia foundation: 2025 impact statement saving lives and improving outcomes for mothers and babies in 2025, the preeclampsia foundation continued its unwavering mission to reduce maternal and infant illness and death due to…
End violence against women international (evawi) inspires and educates those who respond to gender-based violence, equipping them with the knowledge and tools they need to support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. we promote…
The policy center is improving maternal mental health outcomes through closing gaps in care delivery, including improving detection and access to evidence-based and informed clinical and community-based care. the policy center has been…
To cure cf and provide all people with cf the opportunity to lead long, fulfilling lives by funding research and drug development, partnering with the cf community, and advancing high-quality, specialized care.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Foundation Escalera Inc and the most unlike its peers is Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 9 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 Academy for Creating Enterprise ↗
- Who funds WOMEN TO WOMEN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HUNTSMAN MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ORPHANAGE SUPPORT SERVICES ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds NAMI National ↗
- Who funds SAFE HARBOR CRISIS CENTER ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION ESCALERA INC ↗
- Who funds PULMONARY FIBROSIS 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 The Lift Foundation 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.
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.