Skip to content
Umrc-Porter Hills Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Umrc-Porter Hills Foundation

(see on schedule o)

$3.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$2.3M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$28MHealth$2.0MFood & Nutrition$25kHousing & Shelter$8k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $2,803,904, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,030,181 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $226,277 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

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $42k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $153k
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.6M
$57,335
Median grant
1
States reached
$80M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%Meadowlark Retirement Home: $22k → 11%THOME PACE: $252k → 13%LIFE CIRCLES: $47k → 15%MEADOWLARK RETIREMENT HOME: $17k → 11%The Cascade PACE Inc: $10k → 13%UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMM: $11.5M → 14%THE CASCADE PACE INC: $9k → 13%UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMM: $3.3M → 14%United Methodist Retirement Communities: $2.3M → 14%MEADOWLARK RETIREMENT HOME: $100k → 11%UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITY: $2.2M → 14%OAK RIDGE: $8k → 11%UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES: $1.9M → 14%UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES: $1.6M → 14%UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES: $1.5M → 14%UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITY: $1.2M → 14%CHELSEA SENIOR CENTER: $9k → 14%CHELSEA SENIOR ACTIVITIES CENTER: $8k → 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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$30M · 9 repeat orgs$155k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against +11% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
10

Total granted

$30M
$145k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+11%

Still filing today

89%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterHealthReligionFood & NutritionOther
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

  • UM
    UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $26M · revenue +33% · 25% of their budget
  • WP
    WASHTENAW PACE INC
    6× · 2017–2025 · $1.9M · revenue +116%
  • CP
    CASCADE PACE INC
    3× · 2021–2025 · $271k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • LC
    LIFE CIRCLES
    one grant, 2024 · $47k · revenue +10%
  • PH
    PORTER HILLS AT HOMEgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $37k · revenue +59%
  • SW
    SENORA WOODS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
    one grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue -14%
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
Porter Hills Home Health West

Welcoming all, partnering together, enriching lives.

Health
2
Christian Care Retirement Apartments Inc

Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve

—
3
Portage Trail Care Center Inc

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors.

Health
4
National Church Residences At Home Hospice Central Ohio

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors

—
5
National Church Residences At Home Health and Wellness Central Ohio

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors

—
6
National Church Residences At Home Hospice

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors

—
7
National Church Residences At Home Central Ohio

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors.

—
8
Christian Care Surprise Inc

Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve.

Housing & Shelter
9
Ncr At Home Health and Wellness

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors

—
10
Christian Care Mesa Ii Inc

Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve.

Housing & Shelter
11
Christian Care Mesa Inc

Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve.

Human Services
12
Bridgewater Village Inc

Retirement housing

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Meadowlark Retirement Village; 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.
04the grantee network

19 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. 19 of the 20 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
15/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC: $25,546,431 · Human ServicesUNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INCPORTER HILLS PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGE INC: $1,692,341 · Human ServicesPORTER HILLS PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGE INC+5 more: $480,190 · Human ServicesWASHTENAW PACE INC: $1,927,320 · HealthUMRCPH INC: $141,285 · Health+1 more: $7,500 · HealthSPARTA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC: $15,526 · Housing & ShelterRIVER GROVE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC: $8,095 · Housing & ShelterSTATION CREEK RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC: $8,095 · Housing & ShelterWALKER MEADOW RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC: $7,795 · Housing & ShelterDETROIT AFFORDABLE ASSISTED LIVING LDHA LP: $15,991 · OtherCatholic Social Services of Washtenaw County: $7,500 · OtherCASS COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES INC: $7,500 · OtherYPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS: $7,500 · OtherPORTER HILLS AT HOME: $36,751 · ReligionMEALS ON WHEELS WESTERN MICHIGAN: $10,000 · Food & Nutrition
Human Services$27,718,962Health$2,076,105Housing & Shelter$39,511Other$38,491Religion$36,751Food & Nutrition$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC: $25,546,431 over 8y, 25% of budgetWASHTENAW PACE INC: $1,927,320 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetPORTER HILLS PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGE INC: $1,692,341 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetCASCADE PACE INC: $271,297 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetUMRCPH INC: $141,285 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetMEADOWLARK RETIREMENT VILLAGE: $138,278 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetLIFE CIRCLES: $46,520 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPORTER HILLS AT HOME: $36,751 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetCHELSEA SENIOR CENTER: $16,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetSPARTA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC: $15,526 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS WESTERN MICHIGAN: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSENORA WOODS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY: $8,095 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetRIVER GROVE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC: $8,095 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetSTATION CREEK RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC: $8,095 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetWALKER MEADOW RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC: $7,795 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetCatholic Social Services of Washtenaw County: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCASS COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMichigan Physical Fitness Health and Sports Foundation: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS: $7,500 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

Michigan Health Endow…Ann Arbor Area Commun…DTE Energy FoundationCommunity Foundation …Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Michigan Health Endowment FundMI15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Umrc-Porter Hills Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Umrc-Porter Hills Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report 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.

    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 20 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 Umrc-Porter Hills’ 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