Skip to content
Thurston County Food Bank at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Thurston County Food Bank

It is the mission of thruston county food bank to end hunger within our community.

$369k
Granted FY2023
8
Grants FY2023
—
States reached
$117k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02Its 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, FY2022 to 2023.

Food & Nutrition$461k
02FY2023 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $340,891, the rows itemized in this filing. The $368,695 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $27,804 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 · FY2023

  • Under $10k3 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $120k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $197k
$46,937
Median grant
—
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROCHESTER ORGANIZATION OF FAMILIES$116,731
YELM COMMUNITY SERVICES$80,755
BREMERTON FOODLINE$48,400
TENINO COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER$46,937
GATHER CHURCH$25,000
SALVATION ARMY-BREMERTON$8,316
SALVATION ARMY-CENTRALIA$7,552
LEWIS COUNTY FOOD COALITION$7,200
02Its field
03the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 11 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Bremerton Foodline: $48,400 · OtherBremerton FoodlineYELM COMMUNITY SERVICES: $41,137 · OtherYELM COMMUNITY SERVICESROCHESTER ORGANIZATION OF FAMILIES: $33,718 · OtherROCHESTER ORGANIZATION OF FAMILIESBREMERTON FOODLINE LEWIS COUNTY FOOD COALITION OTHERS: $27,135 · OtherBREMERTON FOODLINE LEWIS COUNTY FOOD COALITION OTHERSGATHER CHURCH: $25,000 · OtherGATHER CHURCHTENINO COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER: $17,676 · OtherTENINO COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTERTHE SALVATION ARMY: $15,868 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMY+1 more: $7,200 · OtherRochester Organization of Families: $116,731 · Human ServicesRochester Organization of FamiliesYELM COMMUNITY SERVICES: $80,755 · Human ServicesYELM COMMUNITY SERVICESTenino Community Service Center: $46,937 · Food & NutritionTenino Comm…
Other$216,134Human Services$197,486Food & Nutrition$46,937

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 budgetRochester Organization of Families: $116,731 over 1y, 15% of budgetYELM COMMUNITY SERVICES: $80,755 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetBremerton Foodline: $48,400 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetTenino Community Service Center: $46,937 over 1y, 6.9% of budgetLEWIS COUNTY FOOD BANK COALITION: $7,200 over 1y, 1.5% 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.

Food LifelineNorthwest Harvest EmmPuget Sound Energy Fo…Community Action Coun…The Community Foundat…Amazonsmile Foundation
Food LifelineWA17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Food Lifeline · Northwest Harvest Emm · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · Community Action Council of Lewis Mason & Thurston Counties · The Community Foundation of South Puget Sound · 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 Thurston County Food Bank funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Thurston County Food Bank. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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
    5report 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 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Thurston County Food Bank’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