Loading…
· Private foundation
HELP-A-CHILD FOUNDATION
This foundation does not accept unsolicited requests — it funds preselected organizations.
$444k
Granted FY2021
9
Grants
2
Communities
$150k
Largest
01What you fund
0168% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2021.
Health$198kPhilanthropy$146kRecreation & Sports$46kCommunity Improvement$3kHuman Services$1kOther$183k
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2019
—
2020
—
2021
willow view
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2021 · 9 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2021
- $10k–50k6 grants · $153k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $291k
$25,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
- RIVER OAK CENTER FOR CHILDREN$150,000
- WILLOW VIEW ASSOCIATION$79,750
- WILLOW VIEW ASSOCIATION$61,642
- UC DAVIS CHILDRENS HOSPITAL$47,500
- MARYS HOUSE$25,000
- JDRF$25,000
- SPECIAL OLYMPICS$22,500
- CHILDRENS RECEIVING HOME OF SACRAMENTO$17,500
- ST JOHNS SHELTER$15,000
02The need
04
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 (FY19–19, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6% — the area typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-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 line in 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, United Way ALICE — 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.
66%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$382k · 9 repeat orgs$195k to everyone else
9 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2021, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
9
14
Total granted
$382k
$29k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+44%
+90%
Still filing today
44%
21%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2021, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $166k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Recreation & SportsPhilanthropyHealthCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesOther
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
- RORIVER OAK CENTER FOR CHILDREN4× · 2018–2021 · $198k · revenue +9%
- SOSPECIAL OLYMPICS3× · 2018–2021 · $31k · revenue +44%
- SRSACRAMENTO REGIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE2× · 2018–2019 · $3k · revenue +144%
Funded once
- FTFAIRYTALE TOWNgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue +44%
- FCFRANKLIN CONKLIN FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +90%
- MMARYHOUSEone grant, 2019 · $3k
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.
1
Valley Children's Hospital
Provide high quality, comprehensive healthcare services to children
Health
2
Willow Valley Communities
Wvc enriches the lives of mature adults by providing a continuum of care (cont. on sch o)and service options, promoting wellness, independence and the highest possible quality of life.
Human Services
3
San Francisco Casa
San Francisco CASA (formerly San Francisco Court Appointed Special Advocates) transforms the lives of systems-involved and other vulnerable children, young adults and their families by providing consistent, caring volunteer advocates…
Civil Rights
4
Children's Council of San Francisco
Since 1974, Children's Council has been at the heart of early care and education in San Francisco.
Human Services
5
Valley Children's Medical Group
Provide high quality, comprehensive health services to children.
Health
6
Children's Healthcare of California
The primary exempt purpose of children's healthcare of california includes without limitation the receipt of distributions and grants for the making of distributions and grants to children's hospital of orange county (choc) and to…
Health
7
Orleans County Child Advocacy
Health
8
Children's Haven Association
Human Services
9
Child's Play
Child's play improves the lives of children through the power of play.
Health
10
Children At Risk
Children At Risk serves as a catalyst for change to improve the quality of life for children.
Crime & Legal
11
East Bay Agency for Children
East Bay Agency for Children ("EBAC") improves the well-being of children, youth and families by reducing the impact of trauma and social inequalities.
Health
12
Children's Village Family Service
To provide permanent support for the activities and programs of the Village Family Service Center.
Human Services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Childrens Receiving Home and the most unlike its peers is Willow View Association. 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
8 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Health$198,450Other$182,571Philanthropy$146,392Recreation & Sports$46,000Community Improvement$2,675Human Services$1,000
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.
- Who funds RIVER OAK CENTER FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds WILLOW VIEW ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS RECEIVING HOME OF SACRAMENTO ↗
- Who funds FAIRYTALE TOWN ↗
- Who funds FRANKLIN CONKLIN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SACRAMENTO REGIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds CHILD ADVOCATES OF PLACER COUNTY ↗
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.
Sacramento Region Community FoundationCA15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Sacramento Region Community Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 organisation HELP-A-CHILD FOUNDATION 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: RIVER OAK CENTER FOR CHILDREN.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~2 months of operating runway; revenue held over 7 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 942519001 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on RIVER OAK CENTER FOR CHILDREN, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 2 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue held over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 1% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Help-A-Child Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Help-A-Child Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines