Skip to content
Village Improvement Association of Doylestown at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Village Improvement Association of Doylestown

The VIA mission is to enhance the health and well-being of Central Bucks County and surrounding communities.

$346k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$188k
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.

Health$1.4MHuman Services$99kYouth Development$14kHousing & Shelter$11kCommunity Improvement$10kEducation$6k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $225,860, the rows itemized in this filing. The $346,474 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $120,614 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

  • Under $10k4 grants · $24k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $188k
$7,960
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DOYLESTOWN HEALTH FOUNDATION$188,050
DOYLESTOWN AREA FISH$13,350
CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY GREATER PHILADELPHIA$7,960
VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE$6,000
ROXY READING INC$5,500
DOYLESTOWN FOOD PANTRY$5,000
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, $113k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 5%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 5%VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE: $8k → 11%VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE: $6k → 6%VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE: $6k → 11%DOYLESTOWN AREA FISH: $13k → 6%FRIENDS IN SERVICE TO HUMANITY: $13k → 6%DOYLESTOWN AREA FISH: $12k → 6%DOYLESTOWN AREA FISH: $11k → 6%FRIENDS IN SERVICE TO HUMANITY: $10k → 6%DOYLESTOWN AREA FISH: $9k → 6%FRIENDS IN SERVICE TO HUMANITY: $9k → 6%DOYLESTOWN AREA FISH: $8k → 6%DOYLESTOWN AREA FISH: $7k → 6%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 5 repeat orgs$36k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +74% since the first grant, against +73% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
2

Total granted

$1.5M
$23k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+74%
+73%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k 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
HealthHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementEducationOther
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

  • DH
    DOYLESTOWN HEALTH FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2025 · $1.3M · revenue +96%
  • DA
    DOYLESTOWN AREA FISH
    9× · 2017–2025 · $99k · revenue +88%
  • AS
    ANN SILVERMAN COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINIC
    3× · 2020–2024 · $22k · revenue +28%

Funded once

  • LV
    LENAPE VALLEY FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $13k · revenue +73%
  • NB
    NEW BRITAIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue -10%
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
Doylestown Hospital

The mission of doylestown hospital is to continuously improve the quality of life and proactively advocate for the health and well being of the individuals we serve- see schedule o for additional information. see schedule o for additional…

Health
2
Berks Community Health Center

Berks community health center provides exceptional family-centered primary and preventive healthcare for all residents of berks county, regardless of economic status.

Health
3
Berks Counseling Center Inc

Berks counseling center (bcc) is a recovery oriented certified community behavioral health center (ccbhc) with an integrated behavioral and physical health model of service delivery. the center provides a holistic approach to a culturally…

Health
4
River Valley Health

Our mission is to build health and bridge gaps by providing comprehensive, quality healthcare. river valley health is located in the center of williamsport pennsylvania with a branch in lock haven pa. we serve residents of the greater…

Health
5
Newark Community Health Centers Inc

The mission of newark community health centers is to provide affordable, high quality, and accessible healthcare to the communities that we serve. as one of the largest providers of comprehensive primary care services for uninsured and…

Health
6
Delaware Valley Community Health Inc

Delaware valley community health (dvch) is a community-governed health care organization providing affordable and accessible primary medical, dental, and behavioral health care. services are provided in a fiscally responsible manner to all…

—
7
Delaware Valley Community Support Network Trust

The mission of the entity is exclusively to support the mission of delaware valley community health, including, without limitation, to hold and develop property for the use and benefit of delaware valley community health.

Health
8
Rural Health Corporation of Northeastern Pennsylvania

Rhc's health centers provide comprehensive medical and dental care to individuals throughout northeastern pennsylvania. primary care services include pediatric, adolescent, adult, and geriatric medicine; diagnostic evaluations; treatment…

Health
9
Chespenn Health Services Inc

To provide comprehensive primary and preventive care and social services to medically underserved families and individuals regardless of their ability to pay.

Health
10
Bridge Clinic Inc

The bridge clinic is a community-minded organization offering full-service, nonprofit veterinary care to bucks county, philadelphia county, parts of new jersey and the surrounding region. our organization is a resource for the community,…

Animals
11
Healthcare 2000 Community Clinic Inc

To provide accessible, affordable, and quality health care to all members of our community, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay.

Health
12
Pennsylvania Community Real Estate Corp

None

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Doylestown Health Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Roxy Reading Inc. 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

9 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.

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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DOYLESTOWN HEALTH FOUNDATION: $1,345,709 · HealthDOYLESTOWN HEALTH FOUNDATION+3 more: $42,785 · HealthDOYLESTOWN AREA FISH: $98,685 · Human ServicesVALLEY YOUTH HOUSE COMMITTEE INC: $14,000 · Human ServicesBUCKS COUNTY HOUSING GROUP INC: $10,500 · OtherNEW BRITAIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION: $10,000 · Community ImprovementROXY READING INC: $5,500 · Education
Health$1,388,494Human Services$112,685Other$10,500Community Improvement$10,000Education$5,500

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 budgetDOYLESTOWN HEALTH FOUNDATION: $1,345,709 over 8y, 4.1% of budgetDOYLESTOWN AREA FISH: $98,685 over 9y, 13% of budgetANN SILVERMAN COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINIC: $22,250 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetVALLEY YOUTH HOUSE COMMITTEE INC: $14,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLENAPE VALLEY FOUNDATION: $12,575 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBUCKS COUNTY HOUSING GROUP INC: $10,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNEW BRITAIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 1y, 8.0% of budgetROXY READING INC: $5,500 over 1y, 8.8% 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.

Foundations Community…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Foundations Community PartnershipPA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Foundations Community Partnership · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Village Improvement Association of Doylestown funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Village Improvement Association of Doylestown. 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 9 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 Village Improvement Association of Doylestown’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