Skip to content
John and Christine Davis Family Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

John and Christine Davis Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$35k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$7k
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, FY2019 to 2025.

Religion$199kCommunity Improvement$74kEducation$28kHuman Services$23kYouth Development$18kRecreation & Sports$8kHealth$3kScience & Tech$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$405k
Total assets

Largely a single collection: about 100% of reported assets are Museum Collection.

Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VENTURE CHRISTIAN CHURCH$6,600
DS MINISTRIES$5,500
CITY TEAM$5,450
CITY TEAM$5,450
ITALY FOR CHRIST$5,400
SUMMIT LEAGUE$2,500
AIR SYSTEMS FOUNDATION$2,500
ROOTED WORSHIP MINISTRIES$700
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY$500
BUCK CARDINAL CLUB-STANFORD$500
STANFORD FUND$250
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 (FY19–19, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%H2H FOUNDATION: $3k → 8%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$336k · 11 repeat orgs$15k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +117% since the first grant, against +29% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
10

Total granted

$336k
$14k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+117%
+29%

Still filing today

55%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $700 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionPhilanthropyHuman ServicesHealthArts & CultureRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • DM
    DS Ministries Inc
    7× · 2019–2025 · $38k · revenue +75%
  • IF
    Italy For Christ Inc
    6× · 2020–2025 · $37k · revenue +117%
  • AS
    AIR SYSTEMS FOUNDATION INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $20k · revenue +210%

Funded once

  • SJ
    SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY-TRACK & FIELD
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
  • HF
    H2H FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2019 · $3k
  • CC
    CANCER CAREPOINT INC
    one grant, 2021 · $2k · revenue +11%
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
South San Francisco Rotary Foundation
—
2
California Cricket Foundation
Recreation & Sports
3
San Francisco Family Foundation
—
4
Santa Cruz Sailing Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Kiwanis Club of San Leandro Foundation
Philanthropy
6
San Francisco Challenge dba AmericaOne
Recreation & Sports
7
Wt Stanford Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Summit Bank Foundation

To garner funds in support of research at the UCSF Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Research Center. To aid doctors in finding a cure and provide financial assistance for innovation and progressive research. To provide scholarships to…

Philanthropy
9
Los Altos Journalism Foundation
—
10
Silicon Valley Community Sports Association

We believe that sports have the power to unite individuals from diverse backgrounds, promote physical fitness and well-being, and cultivate a spirit of camaraderie and sportsmanship.

Youth Development
11
California University - Silicon Valley

Providing professional training of Chinese Medicine (TCM), including acupuncture, Chinese herbology, acupressure, Qigong and so on, granting the students Masters degree. Its a three to four years teaching program.

Education
12
Cal Med Foundation
Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cityteam Ministries; the most unlike its peers is H2H Foundation. 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

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 23 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

URBAN CONFLUENCE SILICON VALLEY: $55,000 · OtherURBAN CONFLUENCE SILICON VALLEYVENTURE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: $45,600 · OtherVENTURE CHRISTIAN CHURCHItaly For Christ Inc: $37,400 · OtherItaly For Christ IncTOWER FOUNDATION SJSU: $25,000 · OtherTOWER FOUNDATION SJSUTHE SUMMIT LEAGUE: $19,000 · OtherTHE SUMMIT LEAGUEBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 55 SILICON VALLEY MONTEREY BAY COUNCIL: $18,099 · OtherBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 55 SILICON VALLEY MONTEREY BAY COUNCIL+8 more: $10,450 · OtherCITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $75,900 · ReligionCITYTEAM MINISTRIESDS Ministries Inc: $38,000 · ReligionDS Ministries IncAIR SYSTEMS FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 · PhilanthropyCupertino Rotary Endowment Foundation: $1,000 · PhilanthropyTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $2,500 · EducationH2H FOUNDATION: $2,500 · Human ServicesCANCER CAREPOINT INC: $2,000 · HealthTRI VALLEY QUARTER MIDGET ASSOCIATI: $300 · Recreation & SportsNOTABLE MUSIC AND ARTS ORGANIZATION: $200 · Arts & Culture
Other$210,549Religion$113,900Philanthropy$21,000Education$2,500Human Services$2,500Health$2,000Recreation & Sports$300Arts & Culture$200

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 budgetCITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $75,900 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetDS Ministries Inc: $38,000 over 7y, 1.7% of budgetItaly For Christ Inc: $37,400 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetAIR SYSTEMS FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 5y, 18% of budgetTHE SUMMIT LEAGUE: $19,000 over 2y, 35% of budgetBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 55 SILICON VALLEY MONTEREY BAY COUNCIL: $18,099 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $2,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCANCER CAREPOINT INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCupertino Rotary Endowment Foundation: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTRI VALLEY QUARTER MIDGET ASSOCIATI: $300 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNOTABLE MUSIC AND ARTS ORGANIZATION: $200 over 1y, 0.1% 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 CITYTEAM MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds DS Ministries Inc ↗
  • Who funds Italy For Christ Inc ↗
  • Who funds AIR SYSTEMS FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds THE SUMMIT LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 55 SILICON VALLEY MONTEREY BAY COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds CANCER CAREPOINT INC ↗
  • Who funds Cupertino Rotary Endowment Foundation ↗
  • Who funds TRI VALLEY QUARTER MIDGET ASSOCIATI ↗
  • Who funds NOTABLE MUSIC AND ARTS ORGANIZATION ↗

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.

Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN7.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 John and Christine Davis Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from John and Christine Davis Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%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 · 0–20%
    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 23 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 John and Christine Davis Family’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