Skip to content
Yakima Neighborhood Health Services at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Yakima Neighborhood Health Services

To improve the quality of life in our communities by providing accessible and integrated health and social services, ending homelessness, and offering unique learning opportunities for students of health professions.

$286k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$250k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

89% of Yakima Neighborhood Health Services’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Yakima Valley Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

01What it funds
01FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$48M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$250,000
YAKIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOC$25,000
SOZO SPORTS OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON$6,500
02The need
02

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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY24–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%YAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $250k → 17%SOZO SPORTS OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON: $7k → 17%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 field
03the grantee network

3 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.

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 2024, 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
0/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $250,000 · PhilanthropyYAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONYAKIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION dba NEW VISION FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Community ImprovementYAKIMA COU…Sozo Sports of Central Washington: $6,500 · Recreation & Sports
Philanthropy$250,000Community Improvement$25,000Recreation & Sports$6,500

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $250,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetYAKIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION dba NEW VISION FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetSozo Sports of Central Washington: $6,500 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Yakima Neighborhood Health Services funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Yakima Neighborhood Health Services. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    3report 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, FY20–24
    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 3 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $4k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Yakima Neighborhood Health Services’ 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