· Private foundation
Jslh 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
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $2k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $60k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $276k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHANCELLOR MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD | $629,904 |
| PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE | $500,000 |
| LIPSTICK ANGELS INC | $100,000 |
| COMPAGNIE WANG AND RAMIREZ - CLASH 66 | $75,953 |
| RAWDANCE | $50,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| SAN FRANCISCO MUSEUM OF MODERN ART | $25,000 |
| ARTOGETHER | $25,000 |
| SAN FRANCISCO GIRLS CHORUS INC | $10,000 |
| THE LIVING EARTH SHOW | $2,000 |
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 US giving — 45% of grant dollars ($1.4M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 55% that went abroad ($1.7M) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 8% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Beyond the US — 55% of all-years giving ($1.7M)
2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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.
8 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 5 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, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $637k 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
- CMCHANCELLOR MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD2× · 2023–2024 · $1.3M
- IGIndividual grant recipient2× · 2022–2023 · $150k
- RRAWDANCE3× · 2021–2024 · $140k · revenue +5%
Funded once
- ASARTCARE SF INCone grant, 2020 · $190k
- CSCALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ARTSone grant, 2020 · $80k · revenue +24%
- SSOMArtsone grant, 2023 · $70k · revenue -21%
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.
SFP presents internationally acclaimed and emerging performing artists, introduces innovative programs, and builds new and diversified audiences for the arts through education and outreach activities.
Marin open studios is a non-profit visual arts organization dedicated to engaging and supporting marin county artists and their audiences through events, programs and services. marin open studios champions a diverse and inclusive community…
On the Boards' mission is to invest in leading contemporary performing artists near and far and connect them to a diverse range of communities interested in forward-thinking art and ideas.
As creative producers, we are devoted to the production and presentation of groundbreaking experiences in contemporary performance that use innovative approaches to collaboration, technology, and social engagement. As a service…
(cont from page 1) democratic society, and invaluable as a source of personal enrichment and growth.
Occidental Center for the Arts exists to provide a welcoming and accessible venue for the performing and visual arts in Sonoma County California for local regional national and international artists. our mission is to enrich our community…
Operating out of an old can factory in the Mission District of San Francisco, Z Space now activates two performance spaces, an 85-seat black box and a 244-seat main stage, with a warehouse aesthetic and an adventurous edge.
Smuin Contemporary Ballet thrives on diverse views and dance styles to create art that is original, evocative, and entertaining. By creating a platform for artists to flourish, we foster innovation. By embracing bold ideals and ideas, we…
consulting and presenting opportunities to artists. We promote creative expression as a means for reflection, for celebration, for economic growth and for finding solutions to the challenges that confront our communities.
Opera Parallle presents compelling performances of contemporary operas with high musical and dramatic standards, embracing modern aesthetics, creative use of technology, and social relevance as essential to the future of the art form.…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oakland Theater Project and the most unlike its peers is Learnup Centers. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 24 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 President and Fellows of Middlebury College ↗
- Who funds RAWDANCE ↗
- Who funds TAHOE TRUCKEE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LIPSTICK ANGELS ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ARTS ↗
- Who funds SOMArts ↗
- Who funds FRENCH AMERICAN CULTURAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO MUSEUM OF MODERN ART ↗
- Who funds ARTogether ↗
- Who funds Learnup Centers ↗
- Who funds ArtSpan ↗
- Who funds Bridge Live Arts Prev Hope Mohr Dance ↗
- Who funds San Francisco Girls Chorus Inc ↗
- Who funds OAKLAND THEATER PROJECT ↗
- Who funds DANCERS GROUP ↗
- Who funds THE LIVING EARTH SHOW ↗
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: Phyllis C Wattis Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Fleishhacker Foundation · Center for Cultural Innovation · The Zellerbach Family Foundation · Kenneth Rainin Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Walter and Elise Haas Fund · McNabb Foundation · Marin Community 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 organization Jslh 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.
- President and Fellows of Middlebury College — 1% 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 Jslh Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Jslh 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.