· Private foundation
Johnson and Louise H Clark Charitable Foundation
Its FY2024 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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 63% of JOHNSON AND LOUISE H CLARK CHARITABLE FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k44 grants · $62k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $41k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD | $41,312 |
| THE NUNOA PROJECT | $5,000 |
| AMERICAN WHITEWATER | $5,000 |
| COMMUNITAS | $3,771 |
| BREAKTHROUGH T1D | $3,443 |
| OUR RESCUE | $3,442 |
| NATIONAL CELIAC ASSOCIATION DENVER CELIACS | $3,000 |
| RAZOM INC | $2,295 |
| UNITED PALESTINIAN APPEAL | $2,295 |
| MEXICAN-AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE EDUCATION FUND | $2,295 |
| MARIPOSA MONTESSORI SCHOOL | $2,219 |
| SOUTH SKYLINE FIRESAFE COUNCIL | $2,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION | $1,521 |
| KQED | $1,500 |
| HABITAT FOR HUMANITY | $1,386 |
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, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 9% of Johnson and Louise H Clark Charitable Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 52% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 50% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +37% since the first grant, against +27% for the ones you funded once.
46 repeat relationships — 32 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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
- AWAmerican Whitewater8× · 2017–2024 · $43k · revenue +44%
- REREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK7× · 2017–2023 · $32k · revenue +118%
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC8× · 2017–2024 · $20k · revenue +102%
Funded once
- MAMEDIA ARTS CENTER SAN DIEGOgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $8k · revenue +60%
- RFREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $8k · revenue +89%
- PDPEACE DIRECT INCone grant, 2023 · $7k · revenue -11%
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.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Advocating for public policies that advance democratic values in the digital age.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
Organization mission the observer research foundation america orf america is an independent, non-partisan, and nonprofit organization in washington dc dedicated to addressing policy challenges facing the united states, india, and their…
Preservation of civil liberties through litigation and public education.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
See schedule oustelecom exists to ensure members can compete, grow and thrive to build a world where families, enterprises and communities are connected through the power of broadband.our member companies have committed a considerable…
Epic's mission is to secure the fundamental right to privacy in the digital age for all people through advocacy, research, and litigation.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
The alliance for just deliberation on solar geoengineering (dsg) is a charitable, scientific and educational organization dedicated to building just and inclusive deliberation about research and potential use of solar geoengineering. solar…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Democracy Forward Foundation and the most unlike its peers is South Skyline Fire Safe Council. 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 26 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
48 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. 48 of the 73 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 American Whitewater ↗
- Who funds REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SOUTH SKYLINE FIRE SAFE COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds KQED INC ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds Share Winter Foundation ↗
- Who funds Verified Voting Foundation ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL FUND FOR WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds TREVOR PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds MEDIA ARTS CENTER SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Electronic Frontier Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds THE HALO TRUST (USA) INC ↗
- Who funds PEACE DIRECT INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF BAREFOOT COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC ↗
- Who funds STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SEMPERVIRENS FUND ↗
- Who funds OPERATION SMILE INC ↗
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: Analog Devices Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · The San Francisco Foundation · California Community Foundation · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Blackbaud Giving Fund
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 Johnson and Louise H Clark Charitable 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.
- American Whitewater — 5% of income from government
- Sandy Hook Promise Foundation — 0% of income from government
- Infact Dba Corporate Accountability — 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 Johnson and Louise H Clark Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Johnson and Louise H Clark Charitable Foundation 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.