Skip to content
Carol and Warren Sinsheimer Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Carol and Warren Sinsheimer 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.

$12k
Granted FY2025still arriving
23
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$3k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$28kArts & Culture$24kFood & Nutrition$11kHuman Services$10kEnvironment$6kEducation$2kCivil Rights$2kHousing & Shelter$700Other$0
02FY2025 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$500
Median grant
7
States reached
$82k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SLO NOOR FOUNDATION$2,500
SLO REPERTORY THEATRE$1,000
SLO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL$1,000
TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH ASSOC$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
Individual grant recipient$500
PLANNED PARENTHOOD$500
MONO LAKE COMMITTEE$500
LUMINA ALLIANCE$500
COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER$500
HOSPICE OF SLO COUNTY$500
FRIENDS OF ALTA$500
ECOSLO$200
MONDAY CLUB CONSERVANCY$200
FRIENDS OF 40 PRADO$200
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 (FY19–25, $9k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER: $5k → 12%COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER: $500 → 12%COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER: $500 → 12%COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER: $500 → 12%COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER: $500 → 12%LUMINA ALLIANCE: $500 → 12%LUMINA ALLIANCE: $500 → 12%LUMINA ALLIANCE: $500 → 12%LUMINA ALLIANCE: $500 → 12%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
NY
CA
UT
VA
DC
LA
AL
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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$75k · 25 repeat orgs$16k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against +3% for those funded once.

25 repeat relationships: 19 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
15

Total granted

$75k
$15k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
+3%

Still filing today

48%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Food & NutritionEnvironmentHuman ServicesHealthPhilanthropyHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • KI
    KCBX INC
    4× · 2017–2022 · $15k · revenue +81%
  • SLO NOOR FOUNDATION A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $13k · revenue +44%
  • HO
    HOSPICE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
    5× · 2019–2025 · $8k · revenue +46%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $3k
  • FB
    FOOD BANK COALITION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
    one grant, 2021 · $3k · revenue +3%
  • FF
    FOUNDATION FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
    one grant, 2021 · $3k
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
Cuenca Los Ojos

Cuenca los ojos works to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the us/mexican borderlands through land protection, habitat restoration and wildlife reintroduction.

Environment
2
Shasta Land Trust

Conserve the beauty, character, and diversity of significant lands in far northern california. currently shasta land trust holds conservation easements that permanently protect about 66,000 acres of land.

Environment
3
Los Padres Forestwatch Inc

Los padres forestwatch protects the los padres national forest and the carrizo plain national monument through education, advocacy, and when necessary, legal action for the benefit of our communities, climate and future generations.

Environment
4
Santa Lucia Conservancy

To protect and steward in perpetuity the unique natural, cultural, and asthetic resources of the preserve and serve as a model of ecologically sustainable development to committees outside the preserve.

Environment
5
San Isabel Land Protection Trust

The principal mission of the land trust is to work with landowners to protect agricultural and forest lands, water resources, wildlife habitat and scenic open spaces, and to serve our community by facilitating parks and trail in custer,…

—
6
The Trust for Public Land

The trust for public land creates parks and protects land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. in the past year, we helped communities to plan for parks and conservation, fund parks and conservation,…

Environment
7
The Land Trust for Santa Barbara County

To conserve natural resources, agricultural land and open spaces for present and future generations.

Environment
8
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County

Land trust of santa cruz county (the organization) was incorporated in california as a not-for-profit corporation in 1978. the mission of the organization is to protect, care for, and connect all people to the vibrant natural and working…

Environment
9
Point Lobos Foundation

To protect and nurture point lobos state natural reserve, to educate and inspire visitors to preserve its unique natural and cultural resources, and to strengthen the network of Carmel area state parks.

—
10
Southern Oregon Land Conservancy Inc

To conserve and enhance land in southern oregon to sustain our human and natural communities forever.

Environment
11
San Luis Obispo Legal Assistance Foundation

San luis obispo legal assistance foundation's mission is to provide legal services and resources to people in need.

Crime & Legal
12
Northern California Regional Land Trust

The purpose of the organization is to monitor, manage, and preserve conservation easements it stewards in northern california. the organization acquires conservation easements in land exhibiting important natural features to protect and…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County; the most unlike its peers is Community Counseling Center 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

17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 44 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)
17/17
Grantees still filing
12/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KCBX INC: $15,000 · OtherKCBX INCHOSPICE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: $7,500 · OtherHOSPICE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTYIndividual grant recipient: $6,200 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTRANSITIONSMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION: $4,500 · OtherTRANSITIONSMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATIONIndividual grant recipient: $3,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD: $3,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $3,000 · OtherFOUNDATION FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS: $2,500 · Other+25 more: $16,125 · Other+25 moreSLO NOOR FOUNDATION A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION: $12,500 · HealthSLO NOOR FOUNDA…COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER INC: $7,000 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY C…LUMINA ALLIANCE: $2,000 · Human ServicesLUMINA ALLI…FOOD BANK COALITION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: $3,000 · Food & NutritionCALIFORNIA RANGELAND TRUST: $500 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK GREATER NEW ORLEANS AND ACADIANA: $250 · Food & NutritionTHE MONO LAKE FOUNDATION: $3,000 · PhilanthropyTHE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: $1,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $400 · EnvironmentNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $300 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF 40PRADO: $700 · Housing & Shelter
Other$60,825Health$12,500Human Services$9,000Food & Nutrition$3,750Philanthropy$3,000Environment$1,700Housing & Shelter$700

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetKCBX INC: $15,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetSLO NOOR FOUNDATION A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION: $12,500 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetHOSPICE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: $7,500 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetCOMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER INC: $7,000 over 5y, 2.5% of budgetTRANSITIONSMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION: $4,500 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MONO LAKE FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetFOOD BANK COALITION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLUMINA ALLIANCE: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF 40PRADO: $700 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $600 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA RANGELAND TRUST: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF ALTA INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $400 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $400 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK GREATER NEW ORLEANS AND ACADIANA: $250 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 KCBX INC ↗
  • Who funds SLO NOOR FOUNDATION A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds HOSPICE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds TRANSITIONSMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds THE MONO LAKE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds FOOD BANK COALITION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds LUMINA ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF 40PRADO ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA RANGELAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF ALTA INC ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK GREATER NEW ORLEANS AND ACADIANA ↗

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 Community Foundat…Hughes Charitable Fou…Santa Barbara Foundat…MustThe Shanbrom Family F…Sempra FoundationGe Aerospace Foundati…The Blackbaud Giving …Renaissance Charitabl…The Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…
The Community Foundation San Luis ObispoCA24.1× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Community Foundation San Luis Obispo · Hughes Charitable Foundation · Santa Barbara Foundation · Must · The Shanbrom Family Foundation · Sempra Foundation · Ge Aerospace Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Carol and Warren Sinsheimer Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Carol and Warren Sinsheimer Foundation Inc. 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 Carol and Warren Sinsheimer Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Carol and Warren Sinsheimer Foundation Inc 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 44 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 Carol and Warren Sinsheimer’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