Skip to content
CHARITABLE TRUST No 1 UA HERBERT P MCLAUGHLIN 1995 REVOCABLE TRUST at a glance

· Private foundation

CHARITABLE TRUST No 1 UA HERBERT P MCLAUGHLIN 1995 REVOCABLE TRUST

Its FY2021 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$180k
Granted FY2021
9
Grants FY2021
2
States reached
$36k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2021.

Health$180kArts & Culture$160kCivil Rights$95kFood & Nutrition$50kEducation$41kYouth Development$20kOther$0
02FY2021 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2021

  • Under $10k3 grants · $11k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $169k
$25,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ACCESS INSTITUTE$35,878
SAN FRANCISCO FREE CLINIC$35,000
HEADLANDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS$33,333
ENVISION EDUCATION$30,000
ACLU$25,000
PROJECT CREATE$10,000
Immersive Arts Alliance$5,000
WORLD MONUMENTS FUND$5,000
PANUMBRA FOUNDATION$1,000
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 (FY19–20, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%LARKIN STREET YOUTH SERVICES: $15k → 10%LARKIN STREET YOUTH SERVICES: $5k → 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.

61%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$353k · 6 repeat orgs$223k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +8% since the first grant, against -3% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2021, 2 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
10

Total granted

$353k
$146k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
-3%

Still filing today

67%
70%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $77k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21
Arts & CultureHealthHuman ServicesEducationOther
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

  • HC
    HEADLANDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS
    4× · 2018–2021 · $133k · revenue -11%
  • A
    ACLU
    3× · 2019–2021 · $95k
  • SAN FRANCISCO FREE CLINIC
    2× · 2019–2021 · $45k · revenue -45%

Funded once

  • SF
    SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue +10%
  • IM
    IVU MED
    one grant, 2019 · $25k
  • CI
    CHOICE IN AGINGgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +159%
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
California Institute of Contemporary Art
—
2
San Francisco Art Studio Foundation
—
3
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

See schedule osfmoma believes the art of our time is vital and shares it with passion and purpose, and that art and the creative process can open minds and help build a better world. for that reason, we assemble unparalleled collections,…

Arts & Culture
4
San Francisco Challenge dba AmericaOne
Recreation & Sports
5
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
6
Art Foundation
Arts & Culture
7
Berggruen Institute
Education
8
Kearny Street Workshop Incorporated

Ksw makes artists out of community members and community members out of artists. since 1972, ksw has nurtured the creative spirit, and offered an important platform for new voices to be heard -full statement on schedule o

Arts & Culture
9
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation

Mission statement: mission: caring for our patients first and our people always. vision: to be the most comprehensive, integrated and connected health system for getting and staying well. values: excellence - we deliver high-quality,…

Health
10
San Jose Museum of Art Association

Nurture empathy and connection by engaging communities with socially relevant contemporary art

Arts & Culture
11
Oakland Museum of California

The museum's mission is to inspire all californians to create a more vibrant future for themselves and their communities. through collections, exhibitions, education programs, and public dialogue, we inspire people of all ages and…

Arts & Culture
12
The Lab Sf

The lab gives significant funding, time, and space to traditionally underrepresented artists. we seek to transform alongside artistic practices in order to engage meaningfully with visionary communities whose economic and cultural…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Zen Hospice Project Dba Zen Caregiving Project; the most unlike its peers is Penumbra Foundation. 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

16 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. 16 of the 21 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)
16/16
Grantees still filing
9/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ACLU: $95,000 · OtherACLUSAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK: $50,000 · OtherSAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANKSAN FRANCISCO FREE CLINIC: $45,000 · OtherSAN FRANCISCO FREE CLINICPROJECT CREATE: $30,000 · OtherPROJECT CREATEIVU MED: $25,000 · OtherIVU MEDZEN HOSPICE PROJECT DBA ZEN CAREGIVING PROJECT: $15,000 · OtherZEN HOSPICE PROJECT DBA ZEN CAREGIVING PROJECT+2 more: $10,500 · OtherHEADLANDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $133,332 · Arts & CultureHEADLANDS CENTER FOR THE ARTSSHED NYC INC: $10,000 · Arts & CultureSHED NYC INC+5 more: $18,000 · Arts & Culture+5 moreAccess Institute for Psychological Services: $35,878 · HealthAccess Institute f…GREENLIGHT CLINIC: $30,000 · HealthGREENLIGHT CLINICCHOICE IN AGING: $25,000 · HealthCHOICE IN AGINGA NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT: $3,900 · HealthENVISION EDUCATION INC: $30,000 · EducationLarkin Street Youth Services: $20,000 · Human Services
Other$270,500Arts & Culture$161,332Health$94,778Education$30,000Human Services$20,000

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 budgetHEADLANDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $133,332 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetSAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAN FRANCISCO FREE CLINIC: $45,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetAccess Institute for Psychological Services: $35,878 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetGREENLIGHT CLINIC: $30,000 over 2y, 8.8% of budgetENVISION EDUCATION INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHOICE IN AGING: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetLarkin Street Youth Services: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetZEN HOSPICE PROJECT DBA ZEN CAREGIVING PROJECT: $15,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetSHED NYC INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD MONUMENTS FUND INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMUSEUM OF ARTS AND DESIGN: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetIMMERSIVE ARTS ALLIANCE: $5,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetA NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT: $3,900 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHINESE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA: $2,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetPENUMBRA FOUNDATION: $1,000 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.

The San Francisco Fou…Silicon Valley Commun…Marin Community Found…John Pritzker Family …Jewish Community Fede…National Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …
The San Francisco FoundationCA16.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The San Francisco Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · John Pritzker Family Fund · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 CHARITABLE TRUST No 1 UA HERBERT P MCLAUGHLIN 1995 REVOCABLE TRUST funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from CHARITABLE TRUST No 1 UA HERBERT P MCLAUGHLIN 1995 REVOCABLE TRUST. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    6report 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.

    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 21 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on CHARITABLE TRUST No 1 UA HERBERT P MCLAUGHLIN 1995 REVOCABLE’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