· Community foundation
Community Foundation of the Napa Valley
To mobilize resources, promote philanthropy and provide leadership on vital community issues in napa county.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 342 grants below total $5,305,956 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $5,968,055 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $662,099 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k159 grants · $492k
- $10k–50k160 grants · $2.9M
- $50k–250k22 grants · $1.6M
- $250k+1 grant · $300k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NAPA VALLEY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS ACTIVE IN DISASTER | $300,000 |
| IMMIGRATION INSTITUTE OF THE BAY AREA | $135,500 |
| COMMUNITY INITIATIVES | $125,000 |
| BRANNAN CENTER | $100,000 |
| COMMUNITY INITIATIVES | $100,000 |
| MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE | $95,000 |
| ON THE MOVE | $87,400 |
| DIRECT RELIEF | $80,000 |
| PUERTAS ABIERTAS COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER SUN INC | $76,098 |
| UPVALLEY FAMILY CENTERS OF NAPA COUNTY | $69,606 |
| ON THE MOVE | $65,000 |
| NEWS | $60,000 |
| HUMANE SOCIETY OF NAPA COUNTY | $60,000 |
| WILDLIFE RESCUE CENTER OF NAPA COUNTY | $60,000 |
| NEWS | $55,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $24.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 6% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 13% of Community Foundation of the Napa Valley’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 89% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 92% — more of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +33% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
169 repeat relationships — 94 still active in FY2025, 75 since wound down; 19 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $503k 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
- OTON THE MOVE9× · 2017–2025 · $8.3M · revenue +129%
- UFUPVALLEY FAMILY CENTERS OF NAPA COUNTY9× · 2017–2025 · $5.5M · revenue +172% · 38% of their budget
- BHBURBANK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION2× · 2018–2021 · $2.0M · revenue +109%
Funded once
- COCITY OF NAPA- OFFICE OF MAYORone grant, 2018 · $706k
- LFLIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIREDgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $500k · revenue +202%
- MMETABANKone grant, 2021 · $453k
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.
California college of the arts educates students to shape culture and society through the practice and critical study of art, architecture, design, and writing. benefitting from its san francisco bay area location, the college prepares…
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
The uc santa barbara foundation actively works to further the goals of the university of california, santa barbara. the foundation seeks to maintain and nurture the university's quality and distinction. on behalf of the campus, the…
To improve the health and well-being of veterans and the general public by supporting a world-class biomedical research program conducted by ucsf faculty at the san francisco veterans affairs health care system.
To provide a superior, student-centered learning experience integrating liberal arts and professional education and preparing individuals for lasting achievement and responsible leadership in their careers and communities.
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,…
The AIA California, in collaboration with local components, is the voice of the architectural profession.
To support educational, research and public functions and programs of the riverside campus of the university of california.
Marin academy asks every individual to think, question, and create in an environment of encouragement and compassion, and challenges each person to accept the responsibilities posed by education in a democratic society.
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,…
Calnonprofits, the leading policy voice for california's nonprofit sector, focuses on advocacy, education, and research to build a more powerful and politically engaged nonprofit network across california.
The ucla foundation is the giving, receiving, and investing arm of the ucla campus. the foundation enables private donors to help build, sustain and advance one of the world's finest academic and research institutions. private philanthropy…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Foundation of the Napa Valley and the most unlike its peers is Ripple Effect Animal Project. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.3% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
283 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. 283 of the 378 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 ON THE MOVE ↗
- Who funds BRANNAN CENTER ↗
- Who funds UPVALLEY FAMILY CENTERS OF NAPA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR THE CAROLINAS ↗
- Who funds Francisco Park Conservancy ↗
- Who funds BURBANK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds IMMIGRATION INSTITUTE OF THE BAY AREA ↗
- Who funds Cope Family Center ↗
- Who funds NAPA COUNTY LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds MENTIS ↗
- Who funds Community Resources for Children ↗
- Who funds CFNV CHARITABLE REAL ESTATE FUND CO THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NAPA VALLEY ↗
- Who funds NEWS ↗
- Who funds Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center ↗
- Who funds WORKING SOLUTIONS CDFI ↗
- Who funds 10000 DEGREES ↗
- Who funds Humane Society of Napa County & SPCA INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER NAPA FAIR HOUSING CENTER ↗
- Who funds OLE HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NAPA VALLEY FARMWORKER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED ↗
- Who funds CALISTOGA FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds COLLABRIA CARE ↗
- Who funds OUR TOWN ST HELENA ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY ACTION OF NAPA VALLEY ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC ↗
- Who funds NAPA VALLEY COMMUNITY ORGS ACTIVE IN DISASTER ↗
- Who funds St Helena Hospital Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE UC DAVIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE NAPA COMMUNITIES FIREWISE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NAPA VALLEY EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SONOMA ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds Auction Napa Valley Collective Napa Valley ↗
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: Peter a & Vernice H Gasser Foundation · McNabb Foundation · Napa Valley Vintners Healthy Community Fund · Craig and Kathryn Hall Foundation · Syar Foundation Susan L Syar Director · Marin Community Foundation · Winiarski Family Foundation · St Joseph Health Northern California LLC · E Richard Jones Family Foundation Mr E Richard Jones · Sonoma County Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
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 Community Foundation of the Napa Valley 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.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Portland Va Research Foundation — 34% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% of income from government
- Choate Rosemary Hall Foundation Incorporated — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% 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.