· Public charity
Daffy Charitable Fund
To help people be more generous, more often.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 809 grants below total $35,129,437 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $39,841,265 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $4,711,828 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 $10k256 grants · $1.7M
- $10k–50k443 grants · $8.1M
- $50k–250k91 grants · $8.9M
- $250k+19 grants · $16M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund | $3,345,997 |
| Muslim Community of Folsom | $3,192,800 |
| Heroic Hearts Project | $1,175,000 |
| The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | $1,011,917 |
| The Earth Species Project | $1,005,000 |
| Silicon Valley Community Foundation | $1,000,000 |
| The Infinite Node Foundation | $700,000 |
| Central Fund of Israel | $676,360 |
| The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | $586,081 |
| University of California San Francisco Foundation | $536,871 |
| Make a Difference Ministries Inc | $525,100 |
| CenterPointe Church | $406,000 |
| The Good Food Institute | $365,500 |
| Wake Forest University | $350,000 |
| Oshman Family Jewish Community Center | $345,857 |
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 (FY22–24, $2.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 87% 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 99% of Daffy Charitable Fund’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, 34% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 0% — less 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 +11% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
188 repeat relationships — 173 still active in FY2024, 15 since wound down; 600 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, 30% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20M 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
- HHHEROIC HEARTS PROJECT INC2× · 2023–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +200%
- MAMAKE A DIFFERENCE MINISTRIES INC2× · 2023–2024 · $625k · revenue +72%
- OFOSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER3× · 2022–2024 · $384k · revenue +19%
Funded once
- AHADVENTIST HEALTHCARE INCone grant, 2023 · $700k · revenue 0%
- RFREASON FOR HOPE INCone grant, 2023 · $250k · revenue +8%
- AIATHLETES IN ACTION SPORTS COMPLEX AND RETREAT CENTER INCone grant, 2023 · $200k
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.
To provide multi-specialty surgical care, humanitarian aid and educational support to people in low- and middle-income countries.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…
Our institutional mission is to educate and prepare students to be ethical leaders and socially responsible global citizens who incorporate the dominican values of study, reflection, community and service into their lives.
The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.
We provide exemplary interdisciplinary programs for a community of scholar-practitioners within a distributed learning model grounded in student-driven inquiry and leading to enhanced knowledge.
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
At san francisco friends school, students learn in a community grounded in the quaker values of reflection, integrity, peaceful problem-solving and stewardship. our teachers challenge students with a dynamic curriculum that inspires…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma and the most unlike its peers is Marathon County Youth Hockey Inc. 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 27 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 10% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.2% 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.
652 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 652 of the 948 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 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds MUSLIM COMMUNITY OF FOLSOM ↗
- Who funds HEROIC HEARTS PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds THE EARTH SPECIES PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE INC ↗
- Who funds THE INFINITE NODE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
- Who funds MAKE A DIFFERENCE MINISTRIES INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds LOWELL SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds GIVING WHAT WE CAN USA INC ↗
- Who funds Vanderbilt University ↗
- Who funds THE CLEAR FUND ↗
- Who funds HORIZON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE ↗
- Who funds VETSVETERANS EXPLORING TREATMENT SOLUTIONS ↗
- Who funds Global Distribution Fund Inc D-Prize ↗
- Who funds THE GIRLS' MIDDLE SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds THE INTERMARIUM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF TEL AVIV SOURASKY MEDICAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds REASON FOR HOPE INC ↗
- Who funds THE HOTCHKISS SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds GIVEDIRECTLY INC ↗
- Who funds Manifold for Charity Inc ↗
- Who funds OPEN LUNAR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SAMARITAN'S PURSE ↗
- Who funds AMERICA ISRAEL DEMOCRACY COALITION ↗
- Who funds LOS ALTOS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Healing Advocacy Fund ↗
- Who funds THE SEMINAR NETWORK INC ↗
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: The Joe & Sandy Samberg Foundation Inc · Bright Funds Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · The Intuit Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Founders Pledge Inc · Walter and Elise Haas Fund · American Muslim Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Dare Foundation · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · The Sobrato Family 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 Daffy Charitable 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.
- World Relief Corp of National Association of Evangelicals — 67% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Adventist Healthcare Inc — 1% of income from government
- Rutgers University Foundation — 0% of income from government
- Palm Beach Day Academy 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Daffy Charitable Fund?
Find your warmest path to Daffy Charitable 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.