Skip to content

· Private foundation

Avery-Fuller-Welch Childrens Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$227k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
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 2025.

Education$1.3MHealth$810kYouth Development$316kHuman Services$19kEmployment$5k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $10k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $118k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$45,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO$50,000
LEARNUP CENTERS$50,000
Individual grant recipient$45,500
LEARNUP CENTERS$37,450
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO$34,637
LINDAMOOD-BELL LEARNING PROCESSES$9,882
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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO: $50k → 10%LEARNUP CENTERS: $50k → 10%LEARNUP CENTERS: $30k → 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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.3M · 19 repeat orgs$163k to everyone else

19 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
21

Total granted

$2.3M
$163k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%
+68%

Still filing today

26%
14%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
EducationYouth DevelopmentEmploymentFood & NutritionHuman ServicesOther
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

  • LC
    Learnup Centers
    8× · 2018–2025 · $547k · revenue +440%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO
    9× · 2017–2025 · $316k · revenue +65%
  • AR
    ACTIVE READING CLINIC
    4× · 2018–2024 · $30k · revenue +20%

Funded once

  • GH
    Grateful Heart Holistic Therapy Center
    one grant, 2019 · $16k · revenue -11%
  • FA
    Fairfax-San Anselmo Childrens Centergraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $12k · revenue +116%
  • AI
    ACCESS INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SVCS
    one grant, 2018 · $12k
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
Institute for Human & Social Development

Institute for Human and Social Development provides excellent comprehensive child development and family support services through center based family child care and home visiting to the highest need children of 0-5 years old and their…

Education
2
Childrens Center at Burke Gilman Gardens

The Children's Center is committed to helping children of all backgrounds grow into enthusiastic, kind and confident learners by providing a broad curriculum designed to enhance their social, physical and cognitive development. The…

Unclassified
3
Sargent Rehabilitation Center Inc

It is the mission of Sargent Rehabilitation Center to rehabilitate children and young adults with disabilities for maximum community access to education daily living and employment.

Education
4
Hearing and Speech Center of Northern California

To provide life long professional services to support all people with hearing or communication challenges in achieving their goals.

—
5
Golden Gate Regional Center Inc

Golden gate regional center, inc. (the center) is a not-for-profit corporation chartered by the state of california. the center administers programs for developmentally disabled persons and their families, which include diagnosis,…

Human Services
6
Children's Developmental Center

The organization empowers familities and improves children's lives through comprehensive early intervention services, education, and therapeutic services. the organization primarily offers services to children from birth to three years…

Education
7
Center for Early Childhood Connections

The center for early childhood connections advances the mental health and wellbeing of young children in the bay area.

Health
8
The Childrens Center for Neurodevelopmental Studies Inc

To assist the development of autistic and other neurodevelopmentally delayed children toward a happy and productive future where their maximum potential can be realized.

—
9
Therapy and Learning Center

Pre-school for children with developmental delays, ages 2.9 to 5. the school provides comprehensive educational and therapeutic services according to a school district approved iep. services will enhance the development of speech and…

Education
10
Archild Inc

To provide preschool and therapy services.

Education
11
C5 Childrens School

C5 children's school is a school in san francisco, california, where educators work alongside to facilitate young children's optimal development and learning in a safe, supportive, and enriched environment. our primary goal is to provide…

—
12
Children's Council of San Francisco

By advocating for quality early care and education, empowering families with information and financial support, and building the capabilities of educators, Children's Council of San Francisco ensures that every child in San Francisco has…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ann Martin Center; the most unlike its peers is Learnup Centers. 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

11 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. 11 of the 41 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LINDAMOOD-BELL LEARNING PROCESSES: $548,739 · OtherLINDAMOOD-BELL LEARNING PROCESSESIndividual grant recipient: $428,790 · OtherIndividual grant recipientANN MARTIN CENTER: $95,479 · OtherANN MARTIN CENTER+30 more: $399,770 · Other+30 moreLearnup Centers: $546,630 · Food & NutritionLearnup CentersBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO: $316,189 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS C…ACTIVE READING CLINIC: $29,580 · EducationFOUNDATION FOR HEARING RESEARCH INC WEINGARTEN CHILDRENS CENTER: $21,162 · EducationGrateful Heart Holistic Therapy Center: $16,340 · EducationJEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $19,240 · Human ServicesFairfax-San Anselmo Childrens Center: $11,760 · Human ServicesABILITYPATH: $4,680 · Employment
Other$1,472,778Food & Nutrition$546,630Youth Development$316,189Education$67,082Human Services$31,000Employment$4,680

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 budgetLearnup Centers: $546,630 over 8y, 15% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO: $316,189 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetANN MARTIN CENTER: $95,479 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetACTIVE READING CLINIC: $29,580 over 4y, 4.4% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR HEARING RESEARCH INC WEINGARTEN CHILDRENS CENTER: $21,162 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetNATIONAL CENTER FOR EQUINE FACILITATED THERAPY: $19,440 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $19,240 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGrateful Heart Holistic Therapy Center: $16,340 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetFairfax-San Anselmo Childrens Center: $11,760 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSEEDS OF AWARENESS: $6,990 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetABILITYPATH: $4,680 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds Learnup Centers ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO ↗
  • Who funds ANN MARTIN CENTER ↗
  • Who funds ACTIVE READING CLINIC ↗
  • Who funds FOUNDATION FOR HEARING RESEARCH INC WEINGARTEN CHILDRENS CENTER ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL CENTER FOR EQUINE FACILITATED THERAPY ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds Grateful Heart Holistic Therapy Center ↗
  • Who funds Fairfax-San Anselmo Childrens Center ↗
  • Who funds SEEDS OF AWARENESS ↗
  • Who funds ABILITYPATH ↗

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.

Bothin FoundationCA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Bothin Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Avery-Fuller-Welch Childrens Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Avery-Fuller-Welch Childrens Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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
    5report 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, FY20–25
    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 Avery-Fuller-Welch Childrens Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Avery-Fuller-Welch Childrens Foundation 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 41 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-PF 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 Avery-Fuller-Welch Childrens’ filings →

    More from the funding graph