· Private foundation
Jewell Foundation Limited
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k33 grants · $90k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER | $10,000 |
| MOUNT TAMALPAIS COLLEGE | $10,000 |
| DOLORES HUERTA FOUNDATION | $6,000 |
| POSITIVE COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES | $6,000 |
| PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM | $6,000 |
| C & O CANAL TRUST | $5,000 |
| GLEN ECHO PARK PARTNERSHIP | $5,000 |
| COMMUNITY WATER CENTER | $4,000 |
| POTOMAC CONSERVANCY | $4,000 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS | $3,500 |
| ONE FAIR WAGE | $3,000 |
| ACTBLUE CHARITIES INC | $3,000 |
| CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | $3,000 |
| FOOD & WATER WATCH | $3,000 |
| MARYLAND CITIZENS' HEALTH INTIATIVE EDUCATION FUND INC | $3,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $36k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +38% since the first grant, against +11% for the ones you funded once.
54 repeat relationships — 25 still active in FY2025, 29 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- EBEAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER8× · 2018–2025 · $56k · revenue +33%
- PUPRISON UNIVERSITY PROJECT INC DBA MOUNT TAMALPAIS COLLEGE9× · 2017–2025 · $54k · revenue +207%
- TPTHE POTOMAC CONSERVANCY INC9× · 2017–2025 · $43k · revenue +38%
Funded once
- PFPHYSICIANS FOR A HEALTH PROGRAMone grant, 2017 · $12k
- BCBERKELEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $10k
- EBEAST BAY COMMUNITY LAWone grant, 2017 · $6k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Ca fwd drives action to identify solutions that can be taken to scale to meet the challenges the state is facing. the organization is driven by the belief that regional solutions across the state will help ensure economic, environmental,…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
California Coastkeeper Alliance unites Waterkeeper programs statewide to fight for swimmable, fishable, and drinkable waters for all Californians.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Common impact's mission is to strengthen the capacity of social change organizations, enabling them to better run and scale their programs. through its partnership with companies, common impact taps into the business skills and expertise…
Marin humane transforms lives through exceptional animal care, humane education, and advocacy. every day, marin humane inspires compassion and positive relationships between people and animals.
Amazon conservation unites science, people, and innovation to protect the amazon - the greatest wild forest on earth. as guardians of the most iconic forest on the planet, we bring together the power of the latest science and technology…
To distribute public affairs and other educational information in order to create an electronic bridge between californians and their public officials, and, in the process educate a new generation of voting citizens and civic leaders who…
Our team of experienced journalists, with the time and resources to dig deep, is committed to meaningfully informing Californians about the players, politics, and interests that shape the issues that affect their lives.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is One Fair Wage Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Andrew Goodman Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 32 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
62 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. 62 of the 97 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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 EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds PRISON UNIVERSITY PROJECT INC DBA MOUNT TAMALPAIS COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds THE POTOMAC CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds Berkeley Community Scholars DBA Berkeley Community Fund ↗
- Who funds DOLORES C HUERTA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds C&O CANAL TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES ↗
- Who funds Positive Communication Practices Inc ↗
- Who funds ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds Center for Common Ground ↗
- Who funds CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds FOOD & WATER WATCH ↗
- Who funds KQED INC ↗
- Who funds Infact DBA Corporate Accountability ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds Ashby Village Inc ↗
- Who funds Oakland Elizabeth House ↗
- Who funds PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ↗
- Who funds Insight Housing FKA Berkeley Food and Housing Project ↗
- Who funds ONE FAIR WAGE INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds KOVNO COMMUNICATIONS INC ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC CITIZEN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds THE ANDREW GOODMAN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds Community Water Center ↗
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.
Open a dossier: The San Francisco Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · The California Wellness Foundation · The James Irvine Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The California Endowment · Tides Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Cerity Partners Foundation · United Way of the Bay Area
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 Jewell Foundation Limited 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.
- Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc — 2% of income from government
- Infact Dba Corporate Accountability — 0% of income from government
- K9S for Warriors Inc — 0% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Jewell Foundation Limited?
Find your warmest path to Jewell Foundation Limited 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.