Skip to content

· Private foundation

Hans and Margaret Doe Charitable Trust

Its FY2019 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$2.4M
Granted FY2019
3
Grants FY2019
1
States reached
$2.3M
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

99% of Hans and Margaret Doe Charitable Trust’s FY2019 grant dollars went to The San Diego Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2019 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

4
’17
2
’18
0
’19

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2019.

Philanthropy$2.4MEducation$144kEnvironment$66kArts & Culture$25k
02FY2019 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
  • $250k+1 grant · $2.3M
$28,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION$2,343,785
Individual grant recipient$28,000
SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION$21,573
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY: $12k → 11%MEGHAN EDWARDS-GREEN: $10k → 11%SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY: $10k → 11%MEGHAN EDWARDS-GREEN: $5k → 11%LEANNA FARRIS: $8k → 11%AMANDA BRYANT: $6k → 11%SAN DIEGO SWEETWATER AUTHORITY: $10k → 11%AMANDA BRYANT: $3k → 11%Living Coast Discovery Center: $5k → 11%JACOB MCKINLEY: $10k → 11%Living Coast Discovery Center: $5k → 11%JACOB MCKINLEY: $9k → 11%PARIS MONTGOMERY: $10k → 11%Lakeside's River Park Conservancy: $9k → 11%PARIS MONTGOMERY: $8k → 11%ALLEN DUCUSIN: $4k → 11%FDN GROSSMONT AND CUYAMACA COLLEGES: $10k → 11%ALLEN DUCUSIN: $2k → 11%NICOLETTE MOYER: $10k → 11%IAN HODGES: $10k → 11%NICOLETTE MOYER: $9k → 11%IAN HODGES: $5k → 11%WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN: $10k → 11%SAN DIEGO CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSE: $15k → 11%WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN: $5k → 11%SAN DIEGO CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSE: $10k → 11%INDIVIDUALS: $28k → 11%SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION: $2.3M → 11%SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION: $22k → 11%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.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$170k · 11 repeat orgs$65k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2019, 11 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
4

Total granted

$170k
$37k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+141%

Still filing today

18%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
EnvironmentArts & CultureEducationOther
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

  • SD
    SAN DIEGO CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSEUM
    2× · 2017–2018 · $25k · revenue +36%
  • SD
    SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
    2× · 2017–2018 · $22k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2017–2018 · $19k

Funded once

  • FF
    Foundation for Grossmont and Cuyamaca Collegesgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +141%
  • SD
    SAN DIEGO SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
  • LR
    LAKESIDES RIVER PARK CONSERVANCYgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $9k · revenue +103%
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 17 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
5/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION: $2,365,358 · PhilanthropyTHE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $28,000 · OtherSAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY: $22,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $18,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $18,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $18,000 · OtherWATER CONSERVATION GARDEN: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $14,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $14,000 · OtherSAN DIEGO SWEETWATER AUTHORITY: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $9,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $8,000 · Other+1 more: $5,400 · OtherSAN DIEGO CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSEUM: $25,000 · Arts & CultureLIVING COAST DISCOVERY CENTER: $10,000 · EnvironmentLAKESIDES RIVER PARK CONSERVANCY: $8,500 · EnvironmentFoundation for Grossmont and Cuyamaca Colleges: $10,000 · Education
Philanthropy$2,365,358Other$180,900Arts & Culture$25,000Environment$18,500Education$10,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION: $2,365,358 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetSAN DIEGO CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSEUM: $25,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetLIVING COAST DISCOVERY CENTER: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetFoundation for Grossmont and Cuyamaca Colleges: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLAKESIDES RIVER PARK CONSERVANCY: $8,500 over 1y, 0.9% 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 THE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SAN DIEGO CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSEUM ↗
  • Who funds LIVING COAST DISCOVERY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Foundation for Grossmont and Cuyamaca Colleges ↗
  • Who funds LAKESIDES RIVER PARK CONSERVANCY ↗

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 Conrad Prebys FoundationCA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Conrad Prebys Foundation · The San Diego 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 Hans and Margaret Doe Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hans and Margaret Doe Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 17 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Hans and Margaret Doe’s filings →

    More from the funding graph