· Public charity
Ccf Community Initiatives Fund
Supporting organization of california community foundation.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 93 grants below total $10,225,129 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $10,755,501 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $530,372 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k9 grants · $66k
- $10k–50k55 grants · $1.1M
- $50k–250k17 grants · $1.5M
- $250k+12 grants · $7.5M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT | $1,233,114 |
| BUTTERFLY'S HAVEN | $1,200,000 |
| CALIFORNIA BLACK POWER NETWORK | $1,026,400 |
| SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRANTMAKERS | $1,025,000 |
| DIVERSITY UPLIFTS INC | $925,000 |
| 5365 CRENSHAW OWNER LLC | $350,000 |
| SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $325,000 |
| LA PLAZA DE CULTURA Y ARTES FOUNDATION | $309,707 |
| UCLA FOUNDATION | $300,000 |
| CATALYST CALIFORNIA | $294,753 |
| EMPOWERTHEM COLLECTIVE | $264,675 |
| LA-MAS INC | $250,000 |
| AFRICAN AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ORGANIZATION INC | $178,500 |
| CHARLES DREW UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND SCIENCE | $136,000 |
| REALIZE IMPACT | $125,500 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $4.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 82% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +54% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.
104 repeat relationships — 54 still active in FY2024, 50 since wound down; 35 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.9M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- GLGREATER LOS ANGELES EDUCATION FOUNDATION2× · 2019–2020 · $3.4M · revenue ×41
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRANTMAKERS5× · 2019–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +418%- DCDESTINATION CRENSHAW4× · 2018–2022 · $1.3M · revenue ×86 · 100% of their budget
Funded once
- COCITY OF MERCEDone grant, 2020 · $1.3M
- PFPARTNERS FOR CHILDREN SOUTH LAone grant, 2022 · $1.3M · revenue +14% · 42% of their budget
- HCHARNESS COMMUNITYone grant, 2022 · $952k · revenue -35%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Latino Media Collaborative's mission is to leverage the power of Latino and community news media to impact policy, change narratives, and promote civic engagement, while also supporting advancement of the sector through capacity building,…
Arts for la leads communities, artists and organizations to advocate for an equitable, healthy, and creative los angeles region through the arts.
To advance educational equity. together with families, schools and the community, facilitate access to and opportunities for quality educational and wellness practices so that children thrive from diapers to diplomas.
The L.A. Co-op Lab is a collective that builds capacity for worker ownership in Los Angeles as a pathway toward a more equitable and democratic economy.
strengthening the leadership and workforce skills of Day Laborers and Domestic Workers. through 5 Day Labor Centers, Workers Health Program & Mujeres en Accion using Education & outreach empowerment tools
The mission of the Los Angeles Black Worker Center is to increase access to quality jobs, reduce employment discrimination, and improve industries that employ black workers through action and unionization.
The la conservation corps creates equitable opportunities for young people to build resilience in themselves, their communities and the environment through a program of work, education and support.
Ca fwd drives action to identify solutions that can be taken to scale to meet the challenges the state is facing. the organization is driven by the belief that regional solutions across the state will help ensure economic, environmental,…
California Donor Table anchors a hub of donors, foundations, and community leaders. We pool together our resources to shape California into a truly democratic state that works for the people, not the powerful. Rooted in our commitment to…
Promotion and advancement of children's health through patient care, research, and education.
To distribute public affairs and other educational information in order to create an electronic bridge between californians and their public officials, and, in the process educate a new generation of voting citizens and civic leaders who…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southern California Center for Nonprofit Management and the most unlike its peers is Red Nation Celebration. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 26 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 9% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 16% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
262 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 262 of the 367 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds LEONARDO DICAPRIO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GREATER LOS ANGELES EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRANTMAKERS ↗
- Who funds DESTINATION CRENSHAW ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS FOR CHILDREN SOUTH LA ↗
- Who funds BUTTERFLYS HAVEN FORMERLY KNOWN AS TREEHOUSE IMPACT GROUP ↗
- Who funds DIVERSITY UPLIFTS INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA BLACK POWER NETWORK ↗
- Who funds HARNESS COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds ST JOHN'S COMMUNITY HEALTH ↗
- Who funds LA PLAZA DE CULTURA Y ARTES ↗
- Who funds SEVENTH GENERATION ADVISORS ↗
- Who funds CHILD CARE RESOURCE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds The Cheesecake Factory-Oscar and Evelyn Overton Charitable Foundation ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds PROJECT JOY ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RADIO ↗
- Who funds CATALYST CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL ↗
- Who funds Rockwood Leadership Institute ↗
- Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FII - NATIONAL ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds UNITED CHARITABLE ↗
- Who funds California Black Womens Health Project ↗
- Who funds MERCED RESCUE MISSION ↗
- Who funds Raising Malawi Inc ↗
- Who funds EMPOWERTHEM COLLECTIVE ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds Child Care Law Center ↗
- Who funds LA-MAS INC ↗
- Who funds Central Valley Community Foundation A Corporation ↗
- Who funds Eco Hero Kids Foundation ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Weingart Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · California Community Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · United Way Inc · The Ahmanson Foundation · The California Endowment · Liberty Hill Foundation · The California Wellness Foundation · Community Partners · The Rose Hills Foundation · Baby2baby
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Ccf Community Initiatives Fund funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Child Trends Inc — 50% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Ccf Community Initiatives Fund?
Find your warmest path to Ccf Community Initiatives Fund 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.