Skip to content
The Michael Phelps Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Michael Phelps Foundation

THE MICHAEL PHELPS FOUNDATION's (mfp) mission is to empower individuals to live healthier, more confident lives by providing water safety, mental wellness, and healthy living education, equipping people with the skills to thrive in and out of the water.

$564k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$378k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Youth Development$1.7MRecreation & Sports$381kHuman Services$343kPhilanthropy$115kPublic Safety & Disaster$84kEducation$70kHealth$51kHousing & Shelter$40kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $528,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $563,637 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $35,637 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $150k
  • $250k+1 grant · $378k
$378,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA$378,000
SPECIAL OLYMPICS INTERNATIONAL$150,000
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 (FY19–22, $70k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%LAZARUS HOUSE: $20k → 8%LAZARUS HOUSE: $20k → 8%TRICITY FAMILY SERVICES: $20k → 8%TRI-CITY FAMILY SERVICES: $10k → 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

ME
IL
OH
PA
CT
CA
CO
NE
VA
MD
AZ
NC
DC
GA
TX
FL
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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.9M · 16 repeat orgs$491k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +32% since the first grant, against +6% for those funded once.

16 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
19

Total granted

$2.9M
$491k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+32%
+6%

Still filing today

94%
84%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Youth DevelopmentPhilanthropyRecreation & SportsEducationHuman ServicesPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.1M · revenue +62%
  • SO
    SPECIAL OLYMPICS INC
    6× · 2018–2025 · $342k · revenue +38%
  • JC
    JOSHUA COLLINGSWORTH MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
    3× · 2017–2019 · $40k · revenue +138%

Funded once

  • TB
    The Brighter Days Foundation
    one grant, 2018 · $265k · revenue -23%
  • TT
    TIM TEBOW FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue +699%
  • CK
    CASA KANE COUNTY
    one grant, 2019 · $20k · revenue -13%
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
The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens

Youth Development
2
Boys & Girls Club of the Greater Chippewa Valley Inc

The boys & girls clubs of the greater chippewa valley's mission is to inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, caring citizens.

Youth Development
3
Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as caring, responsible, productive citizens.

Youth Development
4
Boys & Girls Clubs of the North Valley

To inspire and enable all young people to reach their full potential as caring, productive, and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
5
Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Carolina

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
6
Boys & Girls Club of Pbc

The mission of the boys & girls club of palm beach county is to inspire and assist all young people, especially those who need them most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

Youth Development
7
The Boys & Girls Clubs Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those most in need of our services, to realize and develop their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens in a global society.

—
8
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Sioux Empire

To nurture, educate and enrich children and youth for life-long success.

Human Services
9
Boys & Girls Clubs of South Alabama

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
10
Boys and Girls Clubs of King County

Youth health and social, educational, and character development of youth.

Recreation & Sports
11
Boys and Girls Club of Generational Empowerment

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

Health
12
Boys & Girls Clubs Foundation Trust

To provide support for the boys & girls clubs, inc. which provides various educational and recreational services to youth.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Clubs of the Blue Ridge Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ross Powers Foundation Dba Level Field Fund. 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

31 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. 31 of the 35 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
31/31
Grantees still filing
19/31
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $2,052,304 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA+7 more: $62,000 · Youth DevelopmentThe Brighter Days Foundation: $265,322 · PhilanthropyThe Brighter …TIM TEBOW FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 · PhilanthropyTIM TEBOW FOU…+3 more: $27,000 · Philanthropy+3 moreSPECIAL OLYMPICS INC: $342,250 · Recreation & SportsSPECIAL OLYM…USA Swimming Foundation Inc: $25,000 · Recreation & SportsUSA Swimming…+2 more: $17,000 · Recreation & SportsROSS POWERS FOUNDATION DBA LEVEL FIELD FUND: $124,999 · EducationLIVING CLASSROOMS FOUNDATION: $40,000 · EducationTHE EDUCATION FOUNDATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS INC: $30,000 · EducationCAL'S ALL-STAR ANGEL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · EducationLAZARUS HOUSE: $40,000 · Human ServicesTRICITY FAMILY SERVICES: $30,000 · Human ServicesValley of the Sun Young Men's Christian Association: $16,000 · Human ServicesJOSHUA COLLINGSWORTH MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $40,225 · Public Safety & DisasterNational Drowning Prevention Alliance: $38,987 · Public Safety & DisasterTHE SALVATION ARMY: $24,000 · OtherSOUTHWEST VALLEY FAMILY YMCA: $7,500 · OtherSALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA: $5,500 · OtherSpecial Children's Charities: $5,000 · OtherCLAY FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · OtherSPECIAL OLYMPICS ILLINOIS: $5,000 · OtherTHE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION IN FORSYTH COUNTY INC: $30,000 · OtherTHE NEMOURS FOUNDATION: $11,100 · OtherCASA KANE COUNTY: $20,000 · Other
Youth Development$2,114,304Philanthropy$392,322Recreation & Sports$384,250Education$204,999Human Services$86,000Public Safety & Disaster$79,212Other$113,100

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $2,052,304 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS INC: $342,250 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetThe Brighter Days Foundation: $265,322 over 1y, 21% of budgetROSS POWERS FOUNDATION DBA LEVEL FIELD FUND: $124,999 over 5y, 42% of budgetTIM TEBOW FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetJOSHUA COLLINGSWORTH MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $40,225 over 3y, 4.1% of budgetLAZARUS HOUSE: $40,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetLIVING CLASSROOMS FOUNDATION: $40,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNational Drowning Prevention Alliance: $38,987 over 7y, 4.1% of budgetTHE EDUCATION FOUNDATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS INC: $30,000 over 2y, 5.0% of budgetTHE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION IN FORSYTH COUNTY INC: $30,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetTRICITY FAMILY SERVICES: $30,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF MAINE: $26,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetUSA Swimming Foundation Inc: $25,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCASA KANE COUNTY: $20,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetValley of the Sun Young Men's Christian Association: $16,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPAULYD FOUNDATION: $12,000 over 1y, 40% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS ARIZONA INC: $11,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NEMOURS FOUNDATION: $11,100 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCAL'S ALL-STAR ANGEL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE JARRETT PAYTON FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas: $7,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetGREENMOUNT WEST COMMUNITY CENTER FOUNDATION INC: $6,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF FULLERTON INC: $5,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BLUE RIDGE INC: $5,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA INC: $5,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSpecial Children's Charities: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS ILLINOIS: $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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Community Foundation …The Hope and Grace Ch…Ft Cares FoundationNorthwestern Memorial…Boys & Girls Clubs of…The Blackbaud Giving …Chubb Charitable Foun…AbbVie FoundationMightycause Charitabl…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…Enterprise Holdings F…Raymond James Charita…
Community Foundation of the Fox River ValleyIL15.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of the Fox River Valley · The Hope and Grace Charitable Foundation · Ft Cares Foundation · Northwestern Memorial HealthCare Group · Boys & Girls Clubs of America · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Chubb Charitable Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment 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 Michael Phelps Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Michael Phelps Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Living Classrooms Foundation: 7% of income from government
  • The Nemours Foundation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
11report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Michael Phelps Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Michael Phelps Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 35 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Michael Phelps’ 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