Skip to content

· Private foundation

Full Circle Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$149k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$50k
Largest
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 2025.

Health$352kPhilanthropy$298kHuman Services$161kReligion$161kInternational$86kFood & Nutrition$73kCivil Rights$63kCommunity Improvement$20kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $4k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$15,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$2.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION$50,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD$50,000
FOODBANK OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY$15,000
WOMEN'S FUND OF SANTA BARBARA$15,000
REFUGEE ONE$15,000
GIRLS INC$4,130
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, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $5k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 100% of Full Circle Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 51% of the giving stays in IL; by stated purpose, 0%.

Full Circle Family Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$950k · 15 repeat orgs$111k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +89% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
13

Total granted

$950k
$107k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+89%
+17%

Still filing today

67%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Crime & LegalPhilanthropyFood & NutritionHealthReligionCivil RightsOther
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

  • THE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH
    7× · 2017–2025 · $182k · revenue +578%
  • R
    REFUGEEONE
    3× · 2017–2019 · $108k · revenue +190%
  • FO
    Foodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc
    7× · 2018–2025 · $71k · revenue +58%

Funded once

  • C
    CAMPAIGN
    one grant, 2020 · $50k
  • I
    IMAGINEINVESTINVIGORATE
    one grant, 2020 · $20k
  • SB
    SANTA BARBARA UNITED WAY
    one grant, 2019 · $10k
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 San Diego Foundation

The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.

Philanthropy
2
Food Forward Inc

Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.

Food & Nutrition
3
The Chicago Community Trust

Building on 100 years of commitment to the Chicago region, The Chicago Community Trust mobilizes people, ideas, organizations and resources to advance opportunity for all Chicagoans.

Philanthropy
4
Northern Illinois Food Bank

With the support of our community, we provide over 90 million meals annually through our network of over 900 member food pantries and programs across thirteen counties, currently reaching over a half million individuals each month with…

Food & Nutrition
5
The Chicago Bar Foundation

The chicago bar foundation brings the legal community together through advocacy, funding, and innovation to improve access to justice for people in need and to make the legal system more fair, equitable, and effective.

Education
6
The Network Advocating Against Domestic Violence

The Network is a group of 40+ member organizations dedicated to improving the lives of those impacted by gender-based violence through education, public policy and advocacy, and connecting community members with direct service providers.…

Human Services
7
United Food Bank

United Food Bank unites communities to alleviate hunger.

Food & Nutrition
8
Women Action & the Media Corp

Gender equity in media access, representation, employment and ownership and a world in which a just media is considered essential to a just society. women, action & the media (wam) connects and supports media makers, activists, academics…

—
9
Sacramento Region Community Foundation

The Sacramento Region Community Foundation leads, serves, and inspires enduring philanthropy for a just and vibrant Sacramento region.

Philanthropy
10
Central Pennsylvania Food Bank

Our mission is to solve hunger in central pennsylvania by ensuring that everyone struggling with hunger has access to enough wholesome food every day. we will achieve this bold goal with the help of our generous donors, volunteers and…

Food & Nutrition
11
The Global FoodBanking Network

To nourish the world's hungry through uniting and advancing food banks.

International
12
California Association of Food Banks

California association of food banks (cafb) is a non-profit public benefit corporation located in oakland, california. together with its 41-member foodbanks, cafb is the largest charitable hunger-relief and anti-hunger leader in the state.…

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Santa Barbara Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Culinary Care. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

18 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. 18 of the 32 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
16/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN: $187,000 · OtherCHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMENPLANNED PARENTHOOD: $170,650 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOODYWCA EvanstonNorth Shore: $89,150 · OtherYWCA EvanstonNorth ShoreREFUGEE ONE: $86,105 · OtherREFUGEE ONEYWCA: $68,000 · OtherYWCACAMPAIGN: $50,000 · OtherCAMPAIGNUNITED WAY-SANTA BARBARA: $42,257 · OtherUNITED WAY-SANTA BARBARA+15 more: $68,820 · Other+15 moreTHE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH: $181,750 · HealthTHE MICHAEL J FO…REFUGEEONE: $108,000 · ReligionREFUGEEON…Foodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc: $70,746 · Food & Nutrition+1 more: $2,061 · Food & NutritionChicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation: $63,000 · Civil RightsWOMEN'S FUND OF SANTA BARBARA: $45,400 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY INC: $5,000 · PhilanthropySANTA BARBARA FOUNDATION: $2,500 · Philanthropy+1 more: $1,000 · PhilanthropyAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $10,000 · Human Services
Other$761,982Health$181,750Religion$108,000Food & Nutrition$72,807Civil Rights$63,000Philanthropy$53,900Human Services$10,000

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 budgetCHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN: $187,000 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetTHE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH: $181,750 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetREFUGEEONE: $108,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetYWCA EvanstonNorth Shore: $89,150 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetFoodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc: $70,746 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetChicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation: $63,000 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetWOMEN'S FUND OF SANTA BARBARA: $45,400 over 7y, 1.0% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED WAY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetElyssas Mission NFP: $4,500 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetLA CASA NORTE: $3,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSANTA BARBARA FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CECILIA FUND: $2,500 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetCulinary Care: $2,061 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetEVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO PUBLIC MEDIA INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 CHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN ↗
  • Who funds THE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH ↗
  • Who funds REFUGEEONE ↗
  • Who funds YWCA EvanstonNorth Shore ↗
  • Who funds Foodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc ↗
  • Who funds Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN'S FUND OF SANTA BARBARA ↗
  • Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds Elyssas Mission NFP ↗
  • Who funds LA CASA NORTE ↗
  • Who funds SANTA BARBARA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE CECILIA FUND ↗
  • Who funds Culinary Care ↗
  • Who funds THE VOLUNTEER CENTER ↗
  • Who funds EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CHICAGO PUBLIC MEDIA INC ↗

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.

AbbVie FoundationIL12.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: AbbVie Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 Full Circle Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Full Circle Family 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
    8report 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.

    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 32 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Full Circle Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph