· Public charity
Umrc-Porter Hills Foundation
(see on schedule o)
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 7 grants below total $2,803,904 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $3,030,181 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $226,277 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k3 grants · $42k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $153k
- $250k+2 grants · $2.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| United Methodist Retirement Communities | $2,291,824 |
| Porter Hills Presbyterian Village | $317,279 |
| UMRCPH Inc | $95,397 |
| The Washtenaw PACE Inc | $57,335 |
| Meadowlark Retirement Home | $21,607 |
| The Cascade PACE Inc | $10,462 |
| Meals on Wheels Western Michigan | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $26.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 99% 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +33% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
- UMUNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC8× · 2017–2025 · $26M · revenue +33% · 25% of their budget
- WPWASHTENAW PACE INC6× · 2017–2025 · $1.9M · revenue +116%
- CPCASCADE PACE INC3× · 2021–2025 · $271k · revenue +34%
Funded once
- LCLIFE CIRCLESone grant, 2024 · $47k · revenue +10%
- PHPORTER HILLS AT HOMEgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $37k · revenue +59%
- SWSENORA WOODS RETIREMENT COMMUNITYone grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue -14%
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.
Welcoming all, partnering together, enriching lives.
Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve
Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors.
Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors
Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors
Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors
Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors.
Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve.
Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors
Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve.
Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve.
Retirement housing
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Meadowlark Retirement Village and the most unlike its peers is Chelsea Senior Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
19 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. 19 of the 20 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 UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC ↗
- Who funds WASHTENAW PACE INC ↗
- Who funds PORTER HILLS PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGE INC ↗
- Who funds CASCADE PACE INC ↗
- Who funds UMRCPH INC ↗
- Who funds MEADOWLARK RETIREMENT VILLAGE ↗
- Who funds LIFE CIRCLES ↗
- Who funds PORTER HILLS AT HOME ↗
- Who funds CHELSEA SENIOR CENTER ↗
- Who funds SPARTA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC ↗
- Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS WESTERN MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds SENORA WOODS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds RIVER GROVE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC ↗
- Who funds STATION CREEK RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC ↗
- Who funds WALKER MEADOW RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC ↗
- Who funds Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County ↗
- Who funds CASS COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds Michigan Physical Fitness Health and Sports Foundation ↗
- Who funds YPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS ↗
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: Michigan Health Endowment Fund · Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation · Dte Energy Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Umrc-Porter Hills 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.