Skip to content

· Public charity

Academy of Friends

Academy of Friends is a credible steward through which individual donors and corporations contribute to agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area.

$44k
Granted FY2019
5
Grants FY2019
1
States reached
$13k
Largest
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 2019.

Health$31kCrime & Legal$26kArts & Culture$14kHousing & Shelter$12kHuman Services$10kFood & Nutrition$7k
02FY2019 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $39,250, the rows itemized in this filing. The $43,998 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,748 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 · FY2019

  • Under $10k4 grants · $26k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
$6,566
Median grant
1
States reached
$7k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Aids Legal Referral Panel$12,976
Positive Resource Center$7,944
Project Open Hand$6,566
Maitri-Compassionate Care$6,558
Aguilas$5,206
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 90% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Spahr Center: $10k → 8%Aids Legal Referral Panel: $13k → 10%Aids Legal Referral Panel: $13k → 10%Positive Resource Center: $8k → 10%OpenHouse: $12k → 10%Aguilas: $9k → 10%Aguilas: $5k → 10%Maitri-Compassionate Care: $8k → 10%Maitri-Compassionate Care: $7k → 10%HIV Nightline: $9k → 10%Project Open Hand: $7k → 10%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.

55%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$55k · 3 repeat orgs$44k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
3

Total granted

$55k
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
+122%

Still filing today

100%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19
HealthArts & CultureHousing & ShelterFood & 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

  • AL
    AIDS LEGAL REFERRAL PANEL OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
    2× · 2017–2019 · $26k · revenue +75%
  • MC
    MAITRI COMPASSIONATE CARE
    2× · 2017–2019 · $15k · revenue +8%
  • A
    AGUILAS
    2× · 2017–2019 · $14k · revenue -69%

Funded once

  • O
    Openhousegraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $12k · revenue +122%
  • TS
    The Spahr Center
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +176%
  • SF
    SAN FRANCISCO SUICIDE PREVENTION
    one grant, 2017 · $9k
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
Curry Senior Center

To provide services to seniors that promote independent living while maintaining their dignity and self-esteem.

Human Services
2
Aids Project of the East Bay

Aids project of the east bay (apeb) is focused on the prevention of the spread of hiv and supports individuals living with the virus through programs targeted at some of the most vulnerable and marginalized individuals. apeb seeks to…

Health
3
San Francisco Ladies Protection and Relief Society
Health
4
Primary Care at Home Inc

We provide healthcare and health management services in the Oakland, California Bay Area. We seek to recognize, empathize, and correctly respond to clients individual needs both medically and psychosocially. Everyone in our care is treated…

Health
5
Pacific Center for Human Growth

Provides culturally responsive therapy, peer to peer support groups, community outreach services, and facilitated workshops in Alameda County with the aim to enhance the mental health and overall well-being of the LGBTQIA+ and QTBIPOC…

—
6
Southern Arizona Aids Foundation

To promote health, well-being, and social justice for those living with HIV, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities marginalized by society.

Health
7
Rainbow Community Center of Contra Costa County

Rainbow builds community and promotes well-being among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning and Intersex (LGBTQI+) persons and our allies though social opportunities, health & wellness services, and awareness programs.…

Recreation & Sports
8
Rafiki Coalition for Health and Wellness

We envision a San Francisco where communities can access coordinated, culturally affirming whole-person care through trusted, community-rooted systems-leading to longer lives, stronger prevention, and reduced avoidable health related harm.

Health
9
Asian and Pacific Islander Wellness Center Inc

Our core belief at San Francisco Community Health Center is that everyone deserves to be healthy and needs access to the highest quality health care. Our mission is to transform lives by advancing health, wellness and equality.

Health
10
The San Diego Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center

The san diego lgbt community center enhances and sustains the health & well-being of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender, nonbinary, immigrant, and hiv communities to the betterment of our entire san diego region.

Health
11
Central Valley Gender Health & Wellness
Civil Rights
12
Alianza of New Mexico

Alianza's mission is to empower hard-to-reach, vulnerable, and underserved populations through education and supportive services aimed at working with everyone we serve to achieve better outcomes and higher quality of life.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Prc; the most unlike its peers is San Francisco Suicide Prevention. 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

8 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MAITRI COMPASSIONATE CARE: $14,727 · OtherMAITRI COMPASSIONATE CAREThe Spahr Center: $9,636 · OtherThe Spahr CenterSAN FRANCISCO SUICIDE PREVENTION: $8,516 · OtherSAN FRANCISCO SUICIDE PREVENTIONPRC: $7,944 · OtherPRCAIDS LEGAL REFERRAL PANEL OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: $26,231 · HealthAIDS LEGAL REFERRAL PANEL OF …AGUILAS: $14,105 · Arts & CultureAGUILASOpenhouse: $11,604 · Housing & ShelterOpenhouseProject Open Hand: $6,566 · Food & Nutrition
Other$40,823Health$26,231Arts & Culture$14,105Housing & Shelter$11,604Food & Nutrition$6,566

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 budgetAIDS LEGAL REFERRAL PANEL OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: $26,231 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetMAITRI COMPASSIONATE CARE: $14,727 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetAGUILAS: $14,105 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetOpenhouse: $11,604 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetThe Spahr Center: $9,636 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetSAN FRANCISCO SUICIDE PREVENTION: $8,516 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetProject Open Hand: $6,566 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Horizons FoundationCA17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Horizons Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Grass Roots Gay Rights Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 Academy of Friends funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Academy of Friends. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%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 · 0–10%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Academy of Friends?

    Find your warmest path to Academy of Friends 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.

    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 8 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Academy of Friends’ filings →

    More from the funding graph