Skip to content
Glenview Womans Club at a glance

· Private foundation

Glenview Womans Club

Its FY2017 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$26k
Granted FY2017
16
Grants FY2017
4
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2017 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OAKLAND LIBRARY$5,000
PIEDMONT YOGA COMMUNITY$3,500
BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY$2,500
CANCER RESEARCH$2,000
ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK$2,000
DUSTY PAWS RESCUE$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
WINGS OF RESCUE$1,000
LINDSAY WILDLIFE EXPERIENCE$1,000
EAST COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER$1,000
ASPCA$1,000
PETS OF THE HOMELESS$1,000
HUMANE SOCIETY$1,000
OAKLAND ZOO$1,000
HOPALONG ANIMAL RESCUE$1,000
02The need
02

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 (FY17–17, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%PIEDMONT YOGA COMMUNITY: $4k → 10%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 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
Humane World for Animals International

HUMANE WORLD FOR ANIMALS INTERNATIONAL, FKA HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (HSI), works around the globe to promote the human-animal bond, rescue and protect dogs and cats, improve farm animal welfare, protect wildlife, promote animal-free…

Animals
2
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
3
Pom and the Hound Animal Refuge

Animal Welfare

—
4
Jet Wag Animal Rescue Inc

Our mission is to move adoptable dogs and cats primarily from heavily-burdened areas to loving homes. We work with trusted partners throughout the country and around the world and facilitate vet care, transport, and adoptions to help…

Animals
5
Asian Dogs Rescue Allies

To rescue at risk k-9s from asia.

Animals
6
Saving Saluda Strays
Animals
7
Animals First Rescue of the Carolinas Inc

Rescue unwanted dogs and cats from high kill shelters and other dire circumstances. Provide veterinary care shelter and love until the pet is placed into an appropriate new home.

Animals
8
Anas Safe Haven Rescue Inc

Animal Welfare

Animals
9
Powerful Paws Animal Rescue Inc

To help abandoned, surrendered, neglected and abused animals to find homes.

Animals
10
A Better Life

Rescue animals

Animals
11
Hope Fur Paws Rescue

To help injured, abandoned and unwanted animals. We provide food, vet care that includes heartworm prevention and spay or neuter services, shelter and anything else needed.

Animals
12
Paws and Claws Animal Shelter
Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Feeding Pets of the Homeless Aka Pets of the Homeless; the most unlike its peers is Piedmont Yoga Community. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 16 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OAKLAND LIBRARY: $5,000 · OtherOAKLAND LIBRARYALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $2,000 · OtherALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANKCANCER RESEARCH: $2,000 · OtherCANCER RESEARCHEAST COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER: $1,000 · OtherEAST COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTERHOPALONG ANIMAL RESCUE: $1,000 · OtherHOPALONG ANIMAL RESCUEDUSTY PAWS RESCUE INC: $1,000 · OtherDUSTY PAWS RESCUE INCIndividual grant recipient: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientHAYWARD ANIMAL CENTER: $600 · OtherBEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY: $2,500 · AnimalsBEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETYTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $1,000 · AnimalsTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREV…FEEDING PETS OF THE HOMELESS AKA PETS OF THE HOMELESS: $1,000 · AnimalsFEEDING PETS OF THE HOMELESS AKA …WINGS OF RESCUE INC: $1,000 · AnimalsWINGS OF RESCUE INCCONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA: $1,000 · AnimalsCONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNI…Humane World for Animals Inc: $1,000 · AnimalsHumane World for Animals IncPiedmont Yoga Community: $3,500 · Human ServicesPiedmont Yoga C…LINDSAY WILDLIFE MUSEUM: $1,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$13,600Animals$7,500Human Services$3,500Arts & Culture$1,000

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 budgetPiedmont Yoga Community: $3,500 over 1y, 15% of budgetBEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFEEDING PETS OF THE HOMELESS AKA PETS OF THE HOMELESS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWINGS OF RESCUE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHOPALONG ANIMAL RESCUE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLINDSAY WILDLIFE MUSEUM: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDUSTY PAWS RESCUE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetHumane World for Animals 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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Glenview Womans Club funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Glenview Womans Club. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 16 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Glenview Womans Club’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