Skip to content
The Lum Davis Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Lum Davis 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.

$45k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Human Services$70kRecreation & Sports$29kHealth$20kYouth Development$15kCrime & Legal$10kInternational$5kFood & Nutrition$5kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$463k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MOMS LOVE FOREVER$25,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
KYLES FAMILY FOUNDATION$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 (FY22–23, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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%PRESENT NOW: $9k → 14%PRESENT NOW: $1k → 14%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.

63%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$102k · 4 repeat orgs$61k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +28% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
6

Total granted

$102k
$41k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+17%

Still filing today

100%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
Youth DevelopmentHealthCrime & LegalCivil RightsPhilanthropyHuman 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

  • ML
    MOMS LOVE FOREVER
    2× · 2023–2024 · $60k
  • RD
    ROD DEDEAUX FOUNDATION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $29k
  • PN
    PRESENT NOW
    2× · 2022–2023 · $10k · revenue -86%

Funded once

  • TH
    THE HAROLD AND CAROLE PUMP FOUNDATION (FKA THE HAROLD PUMP FOUNDATION)
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue -14%
  • HK
    HOOMAU KE OLA
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue 0%
  • TL
    THE LAW FIRM FOR NON PROFIT
    one grant, 2022 · $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
Kingdom Pillars

Empowering women to wholeness and self-worth with providing a safe haven.

Public Benefit
2
The Deangelo Williams Foundation
—
3
The Maue Kay Foundation
Philanthropy
4
Women Power Love Foundation

Womens inpowerment

Arts & Culture
5
Wade Family Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Taylor Hooton Foundation for Fighting Steroid Abuse

Educate the general population of the dangers of steroid abuse for the purpose of minimizing the abuse of this drug by adolescents and young adults.

Health
7
The Pink Journey Foundation
Health
8
The Wana Brands Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Foundation for Women At Risk

Helping women and children at risk of domestic abuse

Human Services
10
Families in Transition

The mission of families in transition is to empower individuals to break the cycle of domestic violence by providing safety, shelter, support services, public education, social and legal advocacy

Human Services
11
The Deborah Rose Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Direct Action for Women Now World-Wide Inc Formerly Indias Daughters Inc
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kyles Family Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Hoomau Ke Ola. 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 12 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/9
Grantees still filing
4/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MOMS LOVE FOREVER: $60,000 · Crime & LegalMOMS LOVE FOREVERROD DEDEAUX FOUNDATION: $28,500 · PhilanthropyROD DEDEAUX FOUNDAT…THE LAW FIRM FOR NON PROFIT: $10,000 · OtherTHE LAW FIRM F…Individual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual gra…OUR LADY OF SORROWS: $936 · OtherTHE HAROLD AND CAROLE PUMP FOUNDATION (FKA THE HAROLD PUMP FOUNDATION): $10,000 · HealthTHE HAROLD AN…HOOMAU KE OLA: $10,000 · HealthHOOMAU KE OLAKyles Family Foundation: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentKyles Fami…Girls Embracing Mothers Inc: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentGirls Embr…PRESENT NOW: $10,000 · Human ServicesWHITE RIBBON USA: $5,000 · Civil RightsWESTSIDE FOOD BANK: $3,647 · Food & Nutrition
Crime & Legal$60,000Philanthropy$28,500Other$20,936Health$20,000Youth Development$15,000Human Services$10,000Civil Rights$5,000Food & Nutrition$3,647

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetROD DEDEAUX FOUNDATION: $28,500 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetTHE HAROLD AND CAROLE PUMP FOUNDATION (FKA THE HAROLD PUMP FOUNDATION): $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetHOOMAU KE OLA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetKyles Family Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetPRESENT NOW: $10,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetGirls Embracing Mothers Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetWESTSIDE FOOD BANK: $3,647 over 2y, 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.

Fidelity Investments …
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA3.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Lum Davis Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Lum Davis 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%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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.

    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 12 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 Lum Davis’ 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