Skip to content
Ernest Lieblich Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

Ernest Lieblich Foundation

Supporting organization to the california community foundation.

$663k
Granted FY2017
13
Grants FY2017
3
States reached
$175k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

95% of Ernest Lieblich Foundation’s FY2019 grant dollars went to California Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2019 names 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2017, the last year Ernest Lieblich Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 9 organizations, $663k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

9
’17
9
’18
3
’19

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2019.

Philanthropy$837kArts & Culture$225kEnvironment$165kAnimals$113kScience & Tech$20kHealth$16kHuman Services$15kYouth Development$5kOther$0
02FY2017 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2017

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $75k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $585k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$175,000
LOS ANGELES NEIGHBORHOOD LAND TRUST$150,000
YOUNG ARTISTS INTERNATIONAL (IPALPITI ARTISTS INTERNATIONAL)$100,000
LIVING LOVE ANIMAL RESCUE$80,000
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY YOUTH CHORUS$80,000
HARMONY PROJECT$15,000
PROMISE FOUNDATION$10,000
TEJON RANCH CONSERVANCY$10,000
PASADENA CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC$10,000
BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY$10,000
HILLSIDES$10,000
J PAUL GETTY TRUST$10,000
CALVERT STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA$3,000
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 (FY17–18, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%HILLSIDES: $10k → 14%HILLSIDES: $5k → 14%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.

25%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$140k · 4 repeat orgs$427k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2017, 0 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2017 (too recent to call). Read against FY2017, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
15

Total granted

$140k
$427k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
+37%

Still filing today

100%
73%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
EnvironmentAnimalsArts & CultureEducationHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
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

  • BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY
    2× · 2017–2019 · $15k · revenue +31%
  • Pasadena Conservatory of Music
    2× · 2017–2018 · $15k · revenue +47%
  • H
    HILLSIDES
    2× · 2017–2018 · $15k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • LA
    Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust
    one grant, 2017 · $150k · revenue +15%
  • YA
    YOUNG ARTISTS INTERNATIONAL (IPALPITI ARTISTS INTERNATIONAL)
    one grant, 2017 · $100k
  • SF
    San Fernando Valley Youth Chorusgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $80k · revenue +96%
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
The Wildlands Conservancy

The Wildlands Conservancy's dual mission is to preserve the beauty and biodiversity of the earth and to provide programs so that children may know the wonder and joy of nature.

Environment
2
Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation dba River La

Engage.Protect.Enhance.Weareonamissiontobringpeople,water,andnaturetogetherwhilepursuingasustainablerevitalization of the Los Angeles River corridor.

Community Improvement
3
Los Angeles Center of Photography

Los Angeles Center of Photography promotes photography through its educational programs, exhibits, and other creative opportunties and venues.

Arts & Culture
4
Nature Collective

Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…

Environment
5
American Museum of Natural History

The museum's mission statement is: "to discover, interpret, and disseminate - through scientific research and education - knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe."

Arts & Culture
6
California Institute of Contemporary Art
—
7
Chile-California Council

The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…

International
8
Arlington Garden in Pasadena

Arlington Garden is a climate-appropriate, habitat garden offering learning, inspiration, and enjoyment for all.

Environment
9
League of Women Voters of Los Angeles

The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and…

—
10
Community Conservation Solutions

Develop integrated and science-based solutions to complex environmental problems to protect natural lands, water, wildlife and human communities.

—
11
Friends of Residential Treasuresla

The organization is dedicated to energizing, educating and connecting angelenos through the dynamic stories of our homes, neighborhoods and architecture.

Community Improvement
12
Conservation Society of California

Through management of oakland zoo, the conservation society of california deepens connection with animals, saves wildlife, and inspires champions for the natural world.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is California Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is The J Paul Getty Trust. 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

17 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. 17 of the 20 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/17
Grantees still filing
13/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $837,000 · PhilanthropyCALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION+1 more: $10,000 · PhilanthropyLos Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust: $150,000 · EnvironmentLos Angeles N…Tejon Ranch Conservancy: $10,000 · EnvironmentTejon Ranch C…+1 more: $5,000 · EnvironmentYOUNG ARTISTS INTERNATIONAL (IPALPITI ARTISTS INTERNATIONAL): $100,000 · OtherYOUNG ARTIST…PROMISE FOUNDATION: $10,000 · OtherPROMISE FOUN…THE MUSIC GUILD: $5,000 · OtherHILLSIDES: $15,000 · OtherHILLSIDESPRENATAL UNIVERSITY: $6,000 · OtherHUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION: $5,000 · OtherSTUDENTS RUN AMERICA: $5,000 · Other+1 more: $3,000 · OtherLIVING LOVE ANIMAL RESCUE: $95,000 · AnimalsLIVING LO…BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY: $15,000 · AnimalsBEST FRIE…+1 more: $3,000 · AnimalsSan Fernando Valley Youth Chorus: $80,000 · Arts & CulturePasadena Conservatory of Music: $15,000 · Arts & CultureGRIFFITH OBSERVATORY FOUNDATION: $20,000 · Science & TechHarmony Project: $15,000 · Education
Philanthropy$847,000Environment$165,000Other$149,000Animals$113,000Arts & Culture$95,000Science & Tech$20,000Education$15,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $837,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetLos Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust: $150,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetLIVING LOVE ANIMAL RESCUE: $95,000 over 3y, 44% of budgetGRIFFITH OBSERVATORY FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHarmony Project: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPasadena Conservatory of Music: $15,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetHILLSIDES: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE J PAUL GETTY TRUST: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTejon Ranch Conservancy: $10,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetPRENATAL UNIVERSITY: $6,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetHUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSTUDENTS RUN AMERICA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWILDLIFE WAYSTATION: $3,000 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.

California Community …The Ralph M Parsons F…The Rose Hills Founda…The Bank of America C…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
California Community FoundationCA18× affinity7 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: California Community Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · The Rose Hills Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Ernest Lieblich Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ernest Lieblich Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%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 · 0–25%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Ernest Lieblich Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Ernest Lieblich 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.

    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 20 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2017, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ernest Lieblich’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