Skip to content
Jo Ann Brassfield Charitable Giving Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Jo Ann Brassfield Charitable Giving 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.

$95k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$45k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Recreation & Sports$160kHealth$155kHuman Services$30kAnimals$10k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $90k
$30,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$893k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE BRADLEY CENTER$45,000
SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS CO JERRY FARWELL$30,000
SHARKS ALUMNI FOUNDATION$15,000
KELSEYVILLE HIGH SCHOOL$5,000
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 (FY19–25, $75k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%THE BRADLEY CENTER: $45k → 11%NEVADA BLIND CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION: $5k → 13%THE BRADLEY CENTER: $25k → 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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$250k · 4 repeat orgs$105k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
8

Total granted

$250k
$85k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-83%
0%

Still filing today

50%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthEducationPhilanthropyAnimalsYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • SC
    SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS CO JERRY FARWELL
    5× · 2021–2025 · $120k
  • TB
    THE BRADLEY CENTER INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $70k · revenue +16%
  • AC
    AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $40k · revenue -83%

Funded once

  • AA
    ALS ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2019 · $25k
  • TA
    THE ANIMAL FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue 0%
  • CP
    CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY VOLLEYBALL
    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
Nevada Children's Foundation Inc

To support programs providing the highest quality service to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. these services include a residential program at eagle valley children's home and a respite program provided in the…

Human Services
2
Nevada Humane Society

To care for pets, find them homes and save lives.

Animals
3
Nevada Childhood Cancer Foundation

To provide social, emotional, educational, and psychological support and programs to families of all children diagnosed with life threatening or critical illnesses and provide healing arts and wellness programs to adults touched by cancer…

Health
4
Valley Children's Healthcare

To support health care activities and programs for the benefit of, and to provide health care services to, children and adults in central california with diseases, disorders and other health problems of pediatric origin, and to enhance the…

Health
5
Santa Clara Valley Blind Center Inc

To increase the confidence, independence, and quality of life for the blind and visually impaired through educational, recreational, and rehabilitative programs.

—
6
California Childrens Hospital Association

Our mission is to advance the well-being of children, promote access to high quality pediatric health care, and ensure the long-term viability of childrens hospitals.

—
7
Children's Fund Inc

Giving our most vulnerable children support, opportunity and hope by breaking destructive cycles through community partnerships.

Human Services
8
Capability Health & Human Services

Capability health and human services is dedicated to providing transformational and life enhancing services to children and adults with disabilities facing a physical, mental, or social limitation.

Human Services
9
Nevada Health Centers Inc

NVHC provides health services throughout the State of Nevada. Health services include OB/GYN, Pediatrics, Internal Medicine, Primary medical, Behavioral Health and dental care services. NVHC operates a mobile mammography clinic, two mobile…

Health
10
Alliance for Childhood Diseases

To advance cures and treatment of childhood cancer and other rare diseases.

Health
11
Valley Humane SocietyInc

Valley Humane Society (VHS) creates a brighter future for cats and dogs by encouraging and strengthening the bond between people and pets. VHS rescues and rehabilitates companion animals, champions responsible caretaking, shares pets'…

Animals
12
Nevada Primary Care Association

As nevada's federally designated primary care association, nvpca promotes access to affordable, comprehensive & quality health care for nevada's underserved populations. we support & advocate on behalf of member community health centers,…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ronald Mcdonald House Charities of Hawaii Inc; the most unlike its peers is Caring for Hawaii Neonates. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 14 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)
8/10
Grantees still filing
3/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS CO JERRY FARWELL: $120,000 · OtherSANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS CO JERRY FARWELLALS ASSOCIATION: $25,000 · OtherALS ASSOCIATIONCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY VOLLEYBALL: $10,000 · OtherCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY VOLLEYBALLRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF HAWAII INC: $10,000 · OtherRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF HAWAII INC+2 more: $10,000 · Other+2 moreTHE BRADLEY CENTER INC: $70,000 · Human ServicesTHE BRADLEY CENTER INCNEVADA BLIND CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Human ServicesNEVADA BLIND CHILDREN'S…AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $40,000 · HealthAMERICAN CANCER…CARING FOR HAWAII NEONATES: $10,000 · HealthCARING FOR HAWA…BELLA VISTA LEAGUE: $20,000 · PhilanthropySHARKS ALUMNI FOUNDATION: $15,000 · Youth DevelopmentTHE ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $10,000 · AnimalsCAL POLY CORPORATION: $10,000 · Education
Other$175,000Human Services$75,000Health$50,000Philanthropy$20,000Youth Development$15,000Animals$10,000Education$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 budgetTHE BRADLEY CENTER INC: $70,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $40,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetBELLA VISTA LEAGUE: $20,000 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetTHE ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF HAWAII INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCAL POLY CORPORATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVALLE MONTE LEAGUE: $5,000 over 1y, 1.2% 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Enterprise Holdings F…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Enterprise Holdings FoundationMO11.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Enterprise Holdings Foundation · 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 Jo Ann Brassfield Charitable Giving Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jo Ann Brassfield Charitable Giving 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 14 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 Jo Ann Brassfield Charitable Giving’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