· Private foundation
David and Patricia Giuliani Family Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k28 grants · $490k
- $50k–250k9 grants · $630k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER | $125,000 |
| FRED HUTCH CANCER RESEARCH CENTER | $104,500 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA | $100,000 |
| CENTER FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY | $50,000 |
| AWAMAKI US | $50,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| ORION CENTER FOR INTEGRATED MEDICINE | $50,000 |
| CANCER LIFELINE | $50,000 |
| FIND MY PARENT | $50,000 |
| FIELD ACADEMY | $40,000 |
| BEYOND TOXICS | $40,000 |
| WHITE BIRD CLINIC | $30,000 |
| SAN JUAN ISLAND FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER | $20,000 |
| SAN JUAN COMMUNITY HOME TRUST | $20,000 |
| VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER | $20,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $200k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 10% 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.
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 -35% for the ones you funded once.
37 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 14 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, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $505k 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
- SPSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC6× · 2017–2024 · $415k · revenue +10%
- CLCANCER LIFELINE6× · 2017–2024 · $295k · revenue +44%
- BTBeyond Toxics6× · 2017–2024 · $260k · revenue +161%
Funded once
- OHOVERLAKE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $250k
- HOHOSPICE OF THE NW FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $15k
- SCSEATTLE COLLEGES FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $13k · 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.
To protect and extend civil liberties and civil rights by supporting the aclu-wa foundation.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
The npr foundation ("foundation") is organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of its sole supported organization, national public radio, inc. ("npr inc."). the foundation supports npr inc. through various activities such as…
Fsc i&p promotes environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests. this mission aligns with the forest stewardship council (fsc), its network of offices, and other organizations.…
Support significant improvements in health care delivery and outcomes within the context of nonprofit, charitable ownership.
Life science washington is a non-profit trade and professional association dedicated to promoting innovation and responsible growth in the life sciences and biomedical industries in the state of washington. promotion and education are…
The association of washington cities builds connections between our state's diverse cities and towns, while providing our members with the support needed to thrive through delivery of data-driven education, nationally recognized pooling…
The aclu foundation of oregon is dedicated to preserving and defending civil liberties and civil rights.
Disability rights washington's mission is to advance the dignity, equality, and self determination of people with disabilities. we work to pursue justice on matters related to human and legal rights.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Amazon conservation unites science, people, and innovation to protect the amazon - the greatest wild forest on earth. as guardians of the most iconic forest on the planet, we bring together the power of the latest science and technology…
Healthpoint strengthens communities and improves people's health by delivering quality services, breaking down barriers and providing access to all.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Immigration Law Center and the most unlike its peers is Find My Parent. 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 31 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
41 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. 41 of the 60 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 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds AWAMAKI US ↗
- Who funds CANCER LIFELINE ↗
- Who funds Beyond Toxics ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY INC ↗
- Who funds American Civil Liberties Union of Washington ↗
- Who funds NMDP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WHITE BIRD CLINIC ↗
- Who funds HOPELINK ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds SAN JUAN COMMUNITY HOME TRUST ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON BUSINESS ALLIANCE FUND ↗
- Who funds CASCADE PUBLIC MEDIA ↗
- Who funds FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds JOYCE L SOBEL FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING ↗
- Who funds FIND MY PARENT ↗
- Who funds SEATTLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FOOD FOR LANE COUNTY ↗
- Who funds THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds Field Academy ↗
- Who funds ALI FORNEY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC ↗
- Who funds WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds RAINIER VALLEY FOOD BANK ↗
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: Seattle Foundation · The Oregon Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 David and Patricia Giuliani Family Foundation 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.
- White Bird Clinic — 29% of income from government
- Beyond Toxics — 13% of income from government
- Center for an Agricultural Economy Inc — 12% of income from government
- Food for Lane County — 5% of income from government
- Oregon Public Broadcasting — 1% 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 David and Patricia Giuliani Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to David and Patricia Giuliani Family Foundation 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.