Skip to content

· Private foundation

Bigglesworth Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$1.8M
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Bigglesworth Family Foundation Inc’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

1
’17
3
’18
3
’19
3
’20
0
’21
0
’22
1
’23
0
’24
1
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0183% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Philanthropy$11MCrime & Legal$141kHealth$9kCivil Rights$8kPublic Safety & Disaster$6kEducation$3kYouth Development$500Human Services$120Other$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $8k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.8M
$6,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund$1,750,000
World Central Kitchen$6,000
Face to Face Sonoma Aids$1,500
Individual grant recipient$500
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 (FY18–18, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Naral Pro Choice America: $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.

62%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$271k · 3 repeat orgs$163k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +109% since the first grant, against -11% for those funded once.

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

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
12

Total granted

$271k
$157k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+109%
-11%

Still filing today

33%
58%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 19% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
PhilanthropyHuman ServicesCrime & LegalInternationalCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • Northern California Grantmakers
    3× · 2018–2020 · $255k · revenue +109%
  • FT
    Face to Face Sonoma Aids
    3× · 2022–2025 · $9k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    5× · 2017–2021 · $7k

Funded once

  • LA
    Legal Aid Association
    one grant, 2022 · $125k
  • RF
    REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL
    one grant, 2018 · $8k · revenue +24%
  • JD
    Justice Diversity Center of SF
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
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
The Bar Association of San Francisco

The bar association of san francisco champions equal access to justice and promotes humanity, excellence, and diversity in the legal profession. we provide legal services to disadvantaged and underserved individuals in san francisco. we…

—
2
Equal Justice Society

The Equal Justice Society (EJS) is transforming the nations consciousness on racethrough law, social science, and the arts. EJS works to dismantle structural andinstitutional racism to advance robust equal protection under the Fourteenth…

Civil Rights
3
Golden Gate University

Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…

Education
4
Justice Funders

Serve as a partner, educator, and guide for philanthropy in reimagining practices that advance a thriving and just world.

—
5
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

The Law Foundation uses the law as a tool for change. The Law Foundation addresses problems linked to social injustices like poverty, discrimination, child abuse, and neglect. Every day, our attorneys, social workers, and advocates craft…

Crime & Legal
6
Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology Inc

Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.

Science & Tech
7
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment
8
Fund for Justice

Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…

Crime & Legal
9
Equal Justice America Inc

Equal justice america provides grants to legal aid and civil rights organizations serving low-income and disadvantaged people by funding fellowships for law students and early-career lawyers.

Crime & Legal
10
Ffwd

FFWD accelerates the growth of technology nonprofits by providing financial and human capital to help scale technology solutions for education, environmental, health, and human rights issues.

Philanthropy
11
Silicon Schools Fund Inc

The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…

Education
12
California Changelawyers

To build a better justice system for all californians.

Social Science
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Equal Justice Works; the most unlike its peers is Gg Professionals 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

10 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. 10 of the 18 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $10,925,000 · Community ImprovementFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND+1 more: $500 · Community ImprovementNorthern California Grantmakers: $255,332 · Philanthropy+2 more: $5,000 · PhilanthropyLegal Aid Association: $125,000 · OtherFace to Face Sonoma Aids: $8,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $7,000 · Other+6 more: $14,598 · OtherREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $7,500 · Human ServicesWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $6,000 · InternationalEQUAL JUSTICE WORKS: $2,500 · Crime & LegalGG PROFESSIONALS INC: $2,000 · Civil Rights
Community Improvement$10,925,500Philanthropy$260,332Other$155,098Human Services$7,500International$6,000Crime & Legal$2,500Civil Rights$2,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $10,925,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetNorthern California Grantmakers: $255,332 over 3y, 4.1% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOneJustice: $4,278 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE BATTERY FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEQUAL JUSTICE WORKS: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBALIF FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetSILICON VALLEY EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $500 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 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
  • Who funds Northern California Grantmakers ↗
  • Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL ↗
  • Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
  • Who funds OneJustice ↗
  • Who funds THE BATTERY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS ↗
  • Who funds GG PROFESSIONALS INC ↗
  • Who funds BALIF FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SILICON VALLEY EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗

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.

The San Francisco FoundationCA13× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The San Francisco Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Bigglesworth Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bigglesworth Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 18 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 Bigglesworth Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph