Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Food for Families

The purpose of FOOD FOR FAMILIES is to alleviate hunger in the communities we serve.

$6.4M
Granted FY2021
12
Grants FY2021
2
States reached
$1.3M
Largest
01What you fund
0199% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172021.

Food & Nutrition$17MHuman Services$1.2MReligion$153kPhilanthropy$112kCommunity Improvement$74kHousing & Shelter$28kYouth Development$26kPublic Safety & Disaster$21kOther$0
02FY2021 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2021

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $39k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $317k
  • $250k+8 grants · $6.0M
$530,516
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SACRAMENTO FOOD BANK & FAMILY SERVICES$1,285,619
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK - SANTA CLARA & SAN MATEO COUNTIES$1,160,788
FOOD BANK OF CONTRA COSTASOLANO$911,204
SECOND HARVEST OF THE GREATER VALLEY$760,059
FOOD BANK OF NORTHERN NEVADA$640,864
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY$530,516
PLACER FOOD BANK$476,528
ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK$284,210
REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK$206,529
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANK$56,315
MONTEREY COUNTY FOOD BANK$54,338
YOLO FOOD BANK$39,312
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–18, $204k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 71% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%BENICIA COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL: $26k → 10%INTERFAITH COUNCIL OF AMADOR: $17k → 10%BENICIA COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL: $18k → 10%INTERFAITH COUNCIL OF AMADOR: $9k → 10%SHORES OF HOPE: $16k → 16%SHORES OF HOPE: $14k → 16%SOUTH COUNTY SERVICES: $33k → 12%COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY: $37k → 8%COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY: $22k → 8%SOUTH COUNTY SERVICES: $10k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$17M · 76 repeat orgs$1.0M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +84% since the first grant, against +41% for the ones you funded once.

76 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2021, 65 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

76
7

Total granted

$17M
$265k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+84%
+41%

Still filing today

32%
14%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $760k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21
Food & NutritionHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyOther

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

  • SF
    SACRAMENTO FOOD BANK & FAMILY SERVICES
    7× · 2017–2024 · $3.1M · revenue +103%
  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY
    7× · 2018–2024 · $1.9M · revenue +145%
  • FB
    Food Bank of Northern Nevada Inc
    7× · 2018–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +84%

Funded once

  • S
    SFBFS
    one grant, 2018 · $112k
  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK - WATSONVILLE
    one grant, 2017 · $37k
  • CR
    COMMUNITY RESOURCES COUNCIL
    one grant, 2017 · $31k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Foodbank of Southern California

Distribute food to nonprofit agencies

Food & Nutrition
2
Food Bank Coalition of San Luis Obispo County

Procurement and distribution of food to agencies serving the needy.

Food & Nutrition
3
Community Food Bank of San Benito County

Our mission is to provide food, nutritional education, and advocacy for those in need within san benito county, while pursuing our ultimate vision that no resident will suffer from hunger or malnutrition in san benito county.

Education
4
San Francisco Food Bank

To end hunger in san francisco and marin counties by soliciting food donations nationally, distributing this food to qualifying public service agencies and neighborhood pantries, advocating for improved government food programs, and…

5
Foodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc

To end hunger and transform the health of our community by providing nourishment to those in need by acquiring and distributing safe nutritious food via local agencies and by providing education to solve hunger and nutritional problems in…

Food & Nutrition
6
Feeding America Riverside San Bernardino Counties

Our mission is to alleviate hunger in the inland empire of southern california.

Food & Nutrition
7
South County Community Food Bank

Providing nutritious food to low income families and individuals in south clatsop county

Food & Nutrition
8
Foothills Food Bank

The Foothills Food Bank works to ensure access to quality, nutritious food to community members in need, and deliver services with respect and dignity.

9
Siskiyou Community Food Bank

We provided free healthy food to low-income families and individuals in need.

Food & Nutrition
10
South Palo Alto Food Closet

Provide food to qualifying families in Palo Alto

Food & Nutrition
11
Twin Lakes Food Bank

To Share God's Love by Uniting and mobilizing the community to provide food, clothing and support to those in need.

Unclassified
12
Food Bank of Nevada County

To distribute food to the needy of Nevada County.

Food & Nutrition

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Food Bank of Northern Nevada Inc and the most unlike its peers is Vaca Fish Inc. 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 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number24%0%<5yr15%0%5–10yr19%7%10–20yr17%44%20–35yr13%33%35–55yr12%15%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value24%0%<5yr15%0%5–10yr19%13%10–20yr17%20%20–35yr13%37%35–55yr12%30%55yr+

The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/29
the rest of the field
13%
6,768/53,694

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.

04the grantee network

28 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 28 of the 84 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
27/28
Grantees still filing
25/28
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

SACRAMENTO FOOD BANK & FAMILY SERVICES — $3,140,424 · OtherSACRAMENTO FOOD BANK & FAMILY SERVICESFOOD BANK OF CONTRA COSTASOLANO — $2,265,375 · OtherFOOD BANK OF CONTRA COSTASOLANOALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK — $887,190 · OtherALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANKSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK - SAN JOAQUIN AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES — $867,570 · OtherSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK - SAN JOAQUIN AND STANISLAUS COUNT…+60 more — $2,323,990 · Other+60 moreSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY — $1,886,981 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEYFood Bank of Northern Nevada Inc — $1,728,584 · Food & NutritionFood Bank of Northern Nevada IncFEEDING THE FOOTHILLS — $1,533,107 · Food & NutritionFEEDING THE FOOTHILLSSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY — $877,179 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTYREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK — $802,909 · Food & NutritionREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANKYOLO FOOD BANK — $446,381 · Food & NutritionYOLO FOOD BANK+6 more — $408,903 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST OF THE GREATER VALLEY — $760,059 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS AND LOS ALTOS HILLS INC — $59,770 · Human ServicesBENICIA COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL — $43,964 · Human ServicesSouth County Services Inc — $43,463 · Human ServicesSHORES OF HOPE — $30,593 · Human ServicesINTERFAITH COUNCIL OF AMADOR — $26,183 · Human ServicesRIVER CITY FOOD BANK — $42,129 · Community ImprovementWINDSOR SERVICE ALLIANCE — $26,233 · Community Improvement
Other$9,484,549Food & Nutrition$7,684,044Philanthropy$760,059Human Services$203,973Community Improvement$68,362

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetSACRAMENTO FOOD BANK & FAMILY SERVICES — $3,140,424 over 7y, 2.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY — $1,886,981 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetFood Bank of Northern Nevada Inc — $1,728,584 over 7y, 1.5% of budgetFEEDING THE FOOTHILLS — $1,533,107 over 7y, 4.4% of budgetALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK — $887,190 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY — $877,179 over 6y, 1.4% of budgetREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK — $802,909 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF THE GREATER VALLEY — $760,059 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetYOLO FOOD BANK — $446,381 over 7y, 1.6% of budgetFOOD BANK FOR MONTEREY COUNTY — $240,628 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetCENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANK — $172,381 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetInterfaith Food Ministry Nevada County — $103,570 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetCOMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS AND LOS ALTOS HILLS INC — $59,770 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetBENICIA COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL — $43,964 over 2y, 5.8% of budgetSouth County Services Inc — $43,463 over 2y, 11% of budgetRIVER CITY FOOD BANK — $42,129 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetFood Bank of El Dorado County — $42,031 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetSOUTH COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES fka ST JOSEPHS FAMILY CENTER — $36,375 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSHORES OF HOPE — $30,593 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetCarson Valley Community Food Closet Inc — $29,388 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetCOMMITTEE ON THE SHELTERLESS — $27,909 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetWINDSOR SERVICE ALLIANCE — $26,233 over 2y, 27% of budgetINTERFAITH COUNCIL OF AMADOR — $26,183 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetVINE LIFE MINISTRIES INC — $23,038 over 1y, 3.2% of budget
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 SACRAMENTO FOOD BANK & FAMILY SERVICES
  • Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY
  • Who funds Food Bank of Northern Nevada Inc
  • Who funds FEEDING THE FOOTHILLS
  • Who funds ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK
  • Who funds SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
  • Who funds REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK
  • Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF THE GREATER VALLEY
  • Who funds YOLO FOOD BANK
  • Who funds FOOD BANK FOR MONTEREY COUNTY
  • Who funds CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANK
  • Who funds Interfaith Food Ministry Nevada County
  • Who funds COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS AND LOS ALTOS HILLS INC
  • Who funds Childrens Emergency Food Bank
  • Who funds BENICIA COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL
  • Who funds South County Services Inc
  • Who funds RIVER CITY FOOD BANK
  • Who funds Food Bank of El Dorado County
  • Who funds SOUTH COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES fka ST JOSEPHS FAMILY CENTER

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.

The Albertsons Companies FoundationCA24.2× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Albertsons Companies Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · California Association of Food Banks · The PG&E Corporation Foundation · California Foundation for Stronger Communities · Calfoods Logistics · Sutter Health · Sacramento Food Bank & Family Services · Feeding America · United Way California Capital Region · Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano · Second Harvest of Silicon Valley

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 Food for Families 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    17report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Food for Families?

    Find your warmest path to Food for Families 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 84 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $5.5M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2021, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph