Skip to content
Kieve Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Kieve Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$488k
Granted FY2025still arriving
46
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$100k
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.

Animals$1.3MArts & Culture$473kHealth$228kFood & Nutrition$126kEducation$124kCommunity Improvement$98kHuman Services$94kInternational$82kOther$0
02FY2025 · 46 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k28 grants · $78k
  • $10k–50k16 grants · $260k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $150k
$5,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$6.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DREAM FETCHERS$100,000
Individual grant recipient$50,000
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK OF SILICON VALLEY$25,000
SCRITCH KITTENS$25,000
SOI DOG FOUNDATION USA$25,000
EVERY PET'S DREAM$25,000
CENTER FOR ANIMAL PROTECTION$25,000
PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE$20,000
Individual grant recipient$20,000
ANIMAL PLACE$15,000
AT-CHOO FOUNDATION$10,000
MUTTVILLE$10,000
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND$10,000
SECOND CHANCE RESCUE NYC$10,000
HISTORY SAN JOSE$10,000
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 (FY17–25, $100k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY: $500 → 8%YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY: $500 → 8%YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY: $500 → 8%YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY: $500 → 8%YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY: $500 → 8%YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY: $500 → 8%YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY: $500 → 8%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $500 → 8%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $500 → 8%NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS: $20k → 8%NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS: $15k → 8%NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS: $15k → 8%NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS: $15k → 8%NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS: $10k → 8%HUNGER AT HOME: $3k → 8%HUNGER AT HOME: $3k → 8%HUNGER AT HOME: $3k → 8%HUNGER AT HOME: $3k → 8%HUNGER AT HOME: $3k → 8%NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS: $2k → 8%HUNGER AT HOME: $2k → 8%NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS: $2k → 8%HUNGER AT HOME: $1k → 8%HUNGER AT HOME: $500 → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
MA
NJ
CA
VA
MD
AZ
KS
DC
TX
FL
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 6% of Kieve Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 91% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 89%.

Kieve Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 74 repeat orgs$125k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +24% since the first grant, against +4% for those funded once.

74 repeat relationships: 43 still active in FY2025, 31 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

74
27

Total granted

$2.5M
$107k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+4%

Still filing today

58%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $18k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsArts & CultureHealthHuman ServicesPhilanthropyInternationalOther
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

  • BF
    Balooja's Foundation Inc
    5× · 2020–2024 · $210k · revenue +26% · 29% of their budget
  • SS
    SYMPHONY SAN JOSE
    7× · 2017–2025 · $165k · revenue +19%
  • AP
    Animal Place
    6× · 2020–2025 · $85k · revenue +9%

Funded once

  • AV
    ALMADEN VALLEY WOMANS CLUB
    one grant, 2019 · $25k · revenue -94%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
  • RR
    Rancho Roben Rescues Incgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue +141%
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
The San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

To ensure every companion animal has access to quality medical care, compassionate shelter, and a loving home.

Animals
2
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for Monterey County

The SPCA Monterey County's Mission is assuring compassionate treatment of all animals through rescue, rehabilitation, protection and education. The SPCA shelters homeless, neglected, and abused pets, including dogs, cats, horses, exotic…

Animals
3
Spark Rescue Santa Barbara

It is Spark Rescue's mission to rescue, rehabilitate, medically treat, spay and neuter unwanted dogs and cats and place them into permanent homes. To prevent future un wanted litters we spay the mother of the litter being surrendered. We…

Animals
4
Silicon Valley Pet Project

Silicon valley pet project (svpp) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to saving local at-risk shelter pets through rescue, community involvement and education.

Animals
5
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

The aspca's mission, as stated by founder henry bergh in 1866, is "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the united states." the aspca was founded on the belief that animals are entitled to kind and…

Animals
6
California Animal Rescue and Education Sanctuary Inc

C.A.R.E.S.MISSION STATEMENT*Rescue, foster and find good homes for abandoned and homeless domestic and farm animals.*Spay/neuter abandoned and homeless cats and dogs, as well as help low income families with same.*Conduct TNR+ programs to…

—
7
Santa Barbara Humane Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Santa barbara humane operates two campuses located in santa barbara and santa maria providing care for community-owned and homeless animals. both campuses offer affordable high quality veterinary care, compassionate behavior training…

Animals
8
Amazing Dogs

Our mission is to save dogs in distressing conditions on both sides of the California/Mexican border. We provide them with essential medical treatment and care to help them regain their health, and ultimately match them with loving homes…

Animals
9
Santa Cruz Spca and Humane Society

The Santa Cruz SPCA provides safe harbor for animals in need and promotes an active humane community through adoption, advocacy, and education.

Animals
10
Coppers Dream Rescue

To end the euthanasia of adoptable dogs in the united states through increasing public awareness, taking legal action that will benefit shelter animals, prompting low cost spay/neuter programs and by rescuing dogs scheduled for euthenasia…

Human Services
11
Pets in Need

The mission of pets in need is to provide animals with loving care and lasting homes, to partner with communities striving to do the same, and to advance our no-kill legacy.

Animals
12
A Purposeful Rescue Inc

A purposeful rescue is a 501c3 non-profit that saves dogs from high-kill los angeles area shelters.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rotary Club of San Jose Foundation; the most unlike its peers is California Trolley & Railroad Corporation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

53 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. 53 of the 104 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
14
Early backer (in before they grew)
53/53
Grantees still filing
34/53
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Balooja's Foundation Inc: $210,000 · AnimalsBalooja's Foundation IncEVERY PETS DREAM: $170,000 · AnimalsEVERY PETS DREAMDREAM FETCHERS: $150,000 · AnimalsDREAM FETCHERSAnimal Place: $85,000 · AnimalsAnimal PlaceANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC: $60,000 · AnimalsANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INCMUTTVILLE: $55,000 · AnimalsMUTTVILLELOVELEO RESCUE: $33,000 · Animals+7 more: $79,000 · Animals+7 moreCENTER FOR ANIMAL PROTECTION: $108,000 · OtherCENTER FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIONIndividual grant recipient: $85,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientRotary Club of San Jose Inc: $73,500 · OtherRotary Club of San Jose IncSCRITCH KITTENS: $55,000 · OtherSCRITCH KITTENSLINCOLN LAW SCHOOL: $35,000 · OtherSECOND CHANCE RESCUE NYC: $33,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · Other+58 more: $473,200 · Other+58 moreSAN JOSE LIGHT TOWER CORPORATION: $165,000 · Arts & CultureSAN JOSE LIGHT TOW…SYMPHONY SAN JOSE: $165,000 · Arts & CultureSYMPHONY SAN JOSEOPERA SAN JOSE INCORPORATED: $35,000 · Arts & CultureOPERA SAN JOSE INC…HISTORY SAN JOSE: $26,500 · Arts & CultureHISTORY SAN JOSE+6 more: $40,000 · Arts & Culture+6 moreSoi Dog Foundation USA: $125,000 · PhilanthropyAT-CHOO FOUNDATION: $23,000 · PhilanthropyQUEST VALLEY CHARITIES INC: $10,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $1,000 · PhilanthropyStroke Awareness Foundation: $52,000 · HealthPhysicians Committee for Responsible Med: $49,000 · HealthCANCER CAREPOINT INC: $10,000 · HealthVIA REHABILITATION SERVICES INC: $8,500 · HealthTRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION: $7,000 · Health+1 more: $2,000 · HealthNEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: $79,000 · Human ServicesHUNGER AT HOME: $16,500 · Human ServicesYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SILICON VALLEY: $3,500 · Human Services+1 more: $1,000 · Human ServicesSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $90,000 · Food & Nutrition
Animals$842,000Other$892,700Arts & Culture$431,500Philanthropy$159,000Health$128,500Human Services$100,000Food & Nutrition$90,000

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 budgetBalooja's Foundation Inc: $210,000 over 5y, 29% of budgetEVERY PETS DREAM: $170,000 over 6y, 70% of budgetSAN JOSE LIGHT TOWER CORPORATION: $165,000 over 3y, 19% of budgetSYMPHONY SAN JOSE: $165,000 over 7y, 2.6% of budgetDREAM FETCHERS: $150,000 over 2y, 40% of budgetSoi Dog Foundation USA: $125,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $90,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetAnimal Place: $85,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetNEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: $79,000 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetRotary Club of San Jose Inc: $73,500 over 4y, 4.5% of budgetANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC: $60,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetMUTTVILLE: $55,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetStroke Awareness Foundation: $52,000 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetPhysicians Committee for Responsible Med: $49,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetOPERA SAN JOSE INCORPORATED: $35,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetLOVELEO RESCUE: $33,000 over 5y, 1.4% of budgetHISTORY SAN JOSE: $26,500 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetALMADEN VALLEY WOMANS CLUB: $25,000 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetAnimal Pad: $23,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetAT-CHOO FOUNDATION: $23,000 over 3y, 3.7% of budgetOPERATION SMILE INC: $22,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY: $20,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetHUNGER AT HOME: $16,500 over 8y, 1.4% of budgetTHE BERKSHIRE SCHOOL INC: $16,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetPIVOTAL CONNECTIONS: $15,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetROTARY CLUB OF SAN JOSE FOUNDATION: $13,800 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SILICON VALLEY: $10,500 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetRancho Roben Rescues Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetQUEST VALLEY CHARITIES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetNATIVE ANIMAL RESCUE: $10,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCANCER CAREPOINT INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSAN JOSE MUSEUM OF ART ASSOCIATION: $9,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetVIA REHABILITATION SERVICES INC: $8,500 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetTHE TECH INTERACTIVE: $8,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetSAN JOSE YOUTH SYMPHONY: $8,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $8,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetSAN JOSE CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSEUM: $7,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION: $7,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetPENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST: $7,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetHappy Hollow Foundation: $6,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetCHRISTMAS IN THE PARK: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetNetwork for Animals USA Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKIM'S NURTURING NEST ANIMAL SANCTUARY: $5,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetINTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Eisenhower Foundation: $4,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SILICON VALLEY: $3,500 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetKQED INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% 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 Balooja's Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds EVERY PETS DREAM ↗
  • Who funds SAN JOSE LIGHT TOWER CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds SYMPHONY SAN JOSE ↗
  • Who funds DREAM FETCHERS ↗
  • Who funds Soi Dog Foundation USA ↗
  • Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY ↗
  • Who funds Animal Place ↗
  • Who funds NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ↗
  • Who funds Rotary Club of San Jose Inc ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds MUTTVILLE ↗
  • Who funds Stroke Awareness Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Physicians Committee for Responsible Med ↗
  • Who funds OPERA SAN JOSE INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds LOVELEO RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds HISTORY SAN JOSE ↗
  • Who funds ALMADEN VALLEY WOMANS CLUB ↗
  • Who funds Animal Pad ↗
  • Who funds AT-CHOO FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OPERATION SMILE INC ↗
  • Who funds HUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY ↗
  • Who funds HUNGER AT HOME ↗
  • Who funds THE BERKSHIRE SCHOOL INC ↗

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.

Rotary Club of San Jo…The Brandenburg Famil…The Applied Materials…Los Altos Mountain Vi…Farrington Historical…Silicon Valley Commun…The David and Lucile …Bright Funds Foundati…Leo M Shortino Family…The Sobrato Family Fo…San Jose Mercury News…Agilent Technologies …
Rotary Club of San Jose FoundationCA28.3× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Rotary Club of San Jose Foundation · The Brandenburg Family Foundation · The Applied Materials Foundation · Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation · Farrington Historical Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Bright Funds Foundation · Leo M Shortino Family Foundation · The Sobrato Family Foundation · San Jose Mercury News Wish Book Fund Inc · Agilent Technologies 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 Kieve Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Kieve Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    18report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 104 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 Kieve’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