· Private foundation
Craig and Christine Hughes Family Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k27 grants · $63k
- $10k–50k9 grants · $130k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| A New Leaf | $30,000 |
| Save The Family | $20,000 |
| St Vincent de Paul | $20,000 |
| Boys Hope Girls Hope | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| Forest Highlands Foundation | $10,000 |
| OLPH | $10,000 |
| Phoenix Dream Center | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| Andre House | $5,000 |
| Our Lady of Clear Creek Abbey | $5,000 |
| Opportunity Intl | $5,000 |
| Andre House | $5,000 |
| Opportunity International | $5,000 |
| OLPH St Vincent | $5,000 |
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 (FY21–23, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
26 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 16 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, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $81k 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
- HFHABITAT FOR HUMANITY CENTRAL ARIZONA3× · 2017–2019 · $80k · revenue +33%
- DCDIOCESAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL DIOCESE PHOENIX4× · 2018–2024 · $33k · revenue +71%
OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL INC D/B/A OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL-US2× · 2023–2024 · $15k · revenue +17%
Funded once
- PCPHOENIX COLLEGIATE ACADEMY INCone grant, 2017 · $50k
- STSAVE THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF ARIZONAone grant, 2017 · $33k · revenue +1%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $10k
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.
To lead, serve and collaborate to mobilize enduring philanthropy for a better arizona.
Develop solutions to end hunger through food banking, public policy and innovation.
United Food Bank unites communities to alleviate hunger.
Bringing arizonans together to create a stronger and brighter future for our state.
To connect, support and inform efforts to improve the health of individuals and communities in arizona.
Pro-Choice Arizona centers abolition and reproductive justice values to prioritize community needs. We advance reproductive equity, pregnancy and family justice, and abortion access for all folks living in Arizona through direct service…
The american civil liberties union of arizona is the state's premier guardian of liberty working through the arizona legislature and communities statewide to defend and preserve individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to all by the…
To provide children and youth in arizona a safe environment, free from abuse and neglect, by creating strong and successful families.
Impact of southern arizona is a private non-profit volunteer based organization which empowers southern arizonans with the resources required to pursue a stabilized and enhanced quality of life.
To advocate for and act on education improvements that advance the quality of life for all arizonans.
Honorhealth's mission is to improve the health and well-being of those we serve.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is A New Leaf and the most unlike its peers is Missions for Orphans Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 35 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
40 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. 40 of the 81 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 HOMEWARD BOUND ↗
- Who funds HABITAT FOR HUMANITY CENTRAL ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds PHOENIX COLLEGIATE ACADEMY INC ↗
- Who funds Hope Ignites Phoenix ↗
- Who funds DIOCESAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL DIOCESE PHOENIX ↗
- Who funds SAVE THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds A NEW LEAF ↗
- Who funds OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL INC D/B/A OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL-US ↗
- Who funds Forest Highlands Foundation ↗
- Who funds MISSIONS FOR ORPHANS INC ↗
- Who funds VILLA MONTESSORI INC ↗
- Who funds FORTISSIMO ↗
- Who funds Lost Our Home Pet Foundation ↗
- Who funds PHOENIX ART MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds CHARITY GLOBAL INC ↗
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Arizona Community Foundation · Phoenix Community Development and Investment Corporation · American Express Foundation · Thunderbirds Charities · Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust · The Diane and Bruce Halle Foundation · Valley of the Sun United Way · Virginia G Piper Charitable Trust · The Yelp Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Charities Aid Foundation America
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 Craig and Christine Hughes Family 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Craig and Christine Hughes Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Craig and Christine Hughes Family 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.