The 23 grants below total $303,201 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $453,946 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $150,745 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 · FY2025

Under $10k15 grants · $110k
$10k–50k8 grants · $193k

$8,762

Median grant

States reached

$2.0M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
SPECIAL OLYMPICS SOUTH	$45,138
CAMP RECREATION	$44,214
SPECIAL OLYMPICS NO CALIF	$30,426
HEARTRIGHT FOUNDATION	$25,000
HOPE SERVICES	$14,471
OPARC	$12,069
THE CENTER	$11,874
THE ARC - LAOC COUNTIES	$10,183
STEPHANIES HOUSE	$9,786
MILIPITAS HS SPECIAL ED	$9,082
GIGI'S PLAYHOUSE	$8,973
PARENTS HELPING PARENTS	$8,762
NOAH HOMES	$8,288
KINGS VIEW CORP	$7,659
ARC OF PLACER COUNTY	$7,591

02The need

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 (FY17–25, $603k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 65% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$2.9M · 29 repeat orgs$277k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +43% since the first grant, against +24% for the ones you funded once.

29 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$2.9M

$199k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%

+24%

Still filing today

79%

71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $78k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesHealthRecreation & SportsEmploymentYouth DevelopmentHousing & ShelterOther

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

O
OPARC
8× · 2017–2025 · $94k · revenue +58%
PH
PARENTS HELPING PARENTS INC
8× · 2017–2025 · $76k · revenue +68%
HS
HOPE SERVICES
6× · 2017–2025 · $75k · revenue +17%

Funded once

PF
Parents & Friends Incgraduated
one grant, 2017 · $14k · revenue +105%
DA
DESERT ARCgraduated
one grant, 2017 · $11k · revenue +59%
PO
PASTOR OF ST BERNARD CHURCH
one grant, 2020 · $10k

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.

Abilities Oc

To help people with developmental disabilities reach their highest potential and guide them through their special needs journey.

Human Services

Serra Residential Center Inc

To provide dignity, respect and choice for persons with developmental disabilities

—

Northern California Adaptive Living Center

Residential care facility for developmentally disabled individuals

—

People with Disabilities Succeeding

Community support for Developmentally Disabled Adults, with a main emphasis on helping people to obtain and maintain real jobs in local businesses.

Employment

Bakersfield Arc Inc

assist developmentally disabled individuals.

Human Services

Special Abilities of North Texas Inc

To provide the highest quality care, training and support to adults with special needs, giving them opportunities to succeed in life.

Human Services

Alta California Regional Center Inc

The center provides diagnostic evaluations, client coordination and lifelong planning of services for persons with developmental disabilities and their families in accordance with the lanterman developmental disabilities act.

—

Developmental Services Continuum Inc

The mission is to provide support and services for children and adults with developmental disabilities.

—

The Arc of the Capital Area

We empower central texans with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families through compassionate case management and innovative programs.

—

San Gabriel Valley Training Center Residential Facility

To provide residential and supportive services for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. To achieve this mission the organization has constructed three residential homes and a recreation building.

—

Paks Developmental Services Inc

Training of developmentally disabled individuals

Health

California Vocations Inc

The organization provides residential and vocation support to persons with developmental disabilities.

Employment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Arc Riverside and the most unlike its peers is Down Syndrome Connection of the Bay Area. 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 44 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/66

the rest of the field

15%

20,066/136,574

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

51 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. 51 of the 66 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

50/51

Grantees still filing

32/51

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$1,557,295Recreation & Sports$724,692Human Services$608,120Employment$148,068Philanthropy$141,269Health$120,698Youth Development$32,400

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.

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.

California Foundation for Stronger CommunitiesCA20.5× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: California Foundation for Stronger Communities · California Communications Access Foundation Dba Ability Central · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · San Jose Mercury News Wish Book Fund Inc · Dermody Properties Foundation · Heffernan Group Foundation · Orange County Chapter Charities Inc · Sourceamerica · Agilent Technologies Foundation · Sempra Foundation · The California Endowment · Silicon Valley Community 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 Frank Nigro Columbian Foundation Supporting People With Intellectual Disabi 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

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

1get no government money at all

18report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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 Frank Nigro Columbian Foundation Supporting People With Intellectual Disabi?

Find your warmest path to Frank Nigro Columbian Foundation Supporting People With Intellectual Disabi 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.

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