· Public charity
Childrens Support League of the East Bay
Children's support league of the east bay raises money to give to local children's charities.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2019.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 19 grants below total $180,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $191,375 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $11,375 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 · FY2019
- Under $10k4 grants · $30k
- $10k–50k15 grants · $150k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| A SAFE PLACE | $10,000 |
| STAND AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | $10,000 |
| SINGING EAGLE FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| CAMP PHOENIX | $10,000 |
| BAY AREA OUTREACH AND REC PROGRAM | $10,000 |
| ASPIRE EDUCATION PROJEXT | $10,000 |
| YOUTH ALIVE | $10,000 |
| FAITH NETWORK OF THE EAST BAY | $10,000 |
| BAY AREA CRISIS NURSERY | $10,000 |
| CONTRA COSTA INTERFAITH HOUS | $10,000 |
| BUILDING FUTURES WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN | $10,000 |
| COMMUNITY VIOLENCE SOLUTIONS | $10,000 |
| BUILD IN BUSINESS TO LEARN | $10,000 |
| CALICO CENTER | $10,000 |
| CASA OF ALAMEDA COUNTY | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–18, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% 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.
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 +46% since the first grant, against +31% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2019, 2 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (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 FY2019, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k 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
- CCCALICO CENTER3× · 2017–2019 · $28k · revenue +6%
- AEASPIRE EDUCATION PROJECT3× · 2017–2019 · $27k · revenue +27%
- YAYOUTH ALIVE3× · 2017–2019 · $27k · revenue +126%
Funded once
- FSFamily Support Servicesone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +16%
- AASPIRANETgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +53%
- CACHILD ADVOCATES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTYgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +132%
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.
Advocates for abused, neglected and other identified children within the court system, with the belief that every child is entitled to a safe and stable home.
San Francisco CASA transforms the lives of children and youth traumatized and displaced in the foster care and related systems by providing one consistent, caring volunteer advocate, trained to address each childs needs in the court and…
California Alliance of Caregivers represents the voices of relative and non-relative caregivers to promote the well-being of children in foster care. California Alliance of Caregivers provides training information support and advocacy for…
The Sonoma County Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Program serves abused and neglected children coming before the Juvenile Court of Protection and Rehabilitation Services.
CASA of Santa Cruz advocates for children and youth, providing court appointed volunteers so each child in the dependency and juvenile court system feels cared for and connected with the people, families and resources they need to heal and…
CASA recruits, trains, and supports community volunteers who advocate for chidren and youth throughout their journey in foster care.
The Organization recruits, trains and supports adult community volunteers who are assigned to advocate for youth, ages 0 through 21, who are in the child welfare or juvenile justice system. These volunteers are often the only consistent…
For more than 70 years, East Bay Agency for Children continues to improve the well-being of children, youth and families by reducing the impact of trauma and social inequalities.
Comprehensive Family Service System.
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Orange County provides a powerful voice and a meaningful connection for children who have experienced abuse, neglect and abandoment.
Ensuring consistency and support for children in the foster care system through the use of volunteer advocates advancing the best interests of each child.
Resources and Community Advocacy. Serving low income youth and families in the community. Providing culturally competent and sensitivie programing based on based on the needs and resources available in Santa Clara County.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cornerstone Community Development Corporation and the most unlike its peers is Camp Phoenix. 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 34 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
25 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. 25 of the 28 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
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 CAMP PHOENIX ↗
- Who funds CALICO CENTER ↗
- Who funds ASPIRE EDUCATION PROJECT ↗
- Who funds YOUTH ALIVE ↗
- Who funds Bay Area Outreach and Recreation Program ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN RISING INC ↗
- Who funds CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds United Cerebral Palsy Assn of San Francisco ↗
- Who funds Community Violence Solutions ↗
- Who funds Friends of Alameda County CASA Inc ↗
- Who funds Contra Costa Interfaith Transitional Housing Inc ↗
- Who funds NEW DAY FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds ANN MARTIN CENTER ↗
- Who funds Community Education Partnerships ↗
- Who funds Family Support Services ↗
- Who funds ASPIRANET ↗
- Who funds CHILD ADVOCATES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS ↗
- Who funds BUSINESSES UNITED IN INVESTING LENDING & DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA CRISIS NURSERY ↗
- Who funds A SAFE PLACE ↗
- Who funds Contra Costa Youth Council ↗
- Who funds ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF DIABLO VALLEY ↗
- Who funds CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION COUNCIL OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds GRATEFUL GATHERINGS ↗
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: East Bay Community Foundation · Lowell Berry Foundation · Bernard E & Alba Witkin Charitable Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Quest Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · In-N-Out Burgers Foundation · Sunlight Giving · United Way of the Bay Area · San Jose Mercury News Wish Book Fund Inc · West Davis & Bergard Foundation · Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation
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 Childrens Support League of the East Bay 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.
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 Childrens Support League of the East Bay?
Find your warmest path to Childrens Support League of the East Bay 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.