Skip to content
Food for Families at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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 it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2021.

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

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2021

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $39k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $317k
  • $250k+8 grants · $6.0M
$530,516
Median grant
2
States reached
$4.0M
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

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, $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 its 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
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.

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

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +84% since the first grant, against +41% for those 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
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

  • SF
    SACRAMENTO FOOD BANK & FAMILY SERVICES
    8× · 2017–2025 · $3.1M · revenue +103%
  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY
    8× · 2018–2025 · $1.9M · revenue +145%
  • FB
    Food Bank of Northern Nevada Inc
    8× · 2018–2025 · $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
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
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
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…

—
4
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
5
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
6
Food Bank of Nevada County

To distribute food to the needy of Nevada County.

Food & Nutrition
7
Feeding America Riverside San Bernardino Counties

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

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
South County Community Food Bank

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

Food & Nutrition
10
South Palo Alto Food Closet

Provide food to qualifying families in Palo Alto

Food & Nutrition
11
Siskiyou Community Food Bank

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

Food & Nutrition
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Food Bank of Northern Nevada Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

28 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

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

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSACRAMENTO FOOD BANK & FAMILY SERVICES: $3,140,424 over 8y, 2.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $1,886,981 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetFood Bank of Northern Nevada Inc: $1,728,584 over 8y, 1.5% of budgetFEEDING THE FOOTHILLS: $1,533,107 over 8y, 4.4% of budgetALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $887,190 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $877,179 over 7y, 1.4% of budgetREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $802,909 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF THE GREATER VALLEY: $760,059 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetYOLO FOOD BANK: $446,381 over 7y, 1.6% of budgetFOOD BANK FOR MONTEREY COUNTY: $240,628 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetCENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANK: $172,381 over 7y, 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
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.

  • 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 ↗

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.

The Albertsons Compan…Kaiser Foundation Hos…California Associatio…The PG&E Corporation …California Foundation…Calfoods LogisticsSutter HealthSacramento Food Bank …Feeding AmericaUnited Way California…Food Bank of Contra C…Second Harvest of Sil…
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

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 Food for Families funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Food for Families. 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%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, 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 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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 84 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 2021, released 2021. 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 $3.4M 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

    Play a game based on Food for Families’ 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