· Private foundation
Lopker Family Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k16 grants · $43k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $95k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $740k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.8M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER | $1,000,000 |
| UCLA JONSSON CANCER CENTER FOUNDATION | $750,000 |
| TOTEM TECHNOLOGIES | $150,000 |
| GIVING WHAT WE CAN | $140,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION OF SB | $100,000 |
| THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE | $50,000 |
| UCSB FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| GIVEWELL | $50,000 |
| THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE | $20,000 |
| GIVEDIRECTLY INC | $20,000 |
| NEW HARVEST | $20,000 |
| SANTA BARBARA HIGH SCHOOL | $15,000 |
| GAVIOTA COAST CONSERVANCY | $10,000 |
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 human-services grants (FY17–22, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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.
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 +49% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
42 repeat relationships — 25 still active in FY2024, 17 since wound down; 4 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, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $205k 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
- FHFred Hutchinson Cancer Center2× · 2023–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +9%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION6× · 2018–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +46%
- TCTHE CLEAR FUND6× · 2018–2024 · $182k · revenue +648%
Funded once
- UOUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE FOUNDATION INC (SCHOOL OF MEDICINE)one grant, 2023 · $240k
- IFINSTITUTE FOR NATURAL MEDICINEgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $123k · revenue +64%
- CFCANCER FOUNDATION OF SANTA BARBARAone grant, 2017 · $100k · revenue -8%
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 union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.
The Institute is a scientific research center dedicated to conducting basic and applied research to advance the understanding of human disease and the improvement of human health. The Institute fosters an innovative research environment…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
The uc santa barbara foundation actively works to further the goals of the university of california, santa barbara. the foundation seeks to maintain and nurture the university's quality and distinction. on behalf of the campus, the…
Ca fwd drives action to identify solutions that can be taken to scale to meet the challenges the state is facing. the organization is driven by the belief that regional solutions across the state will help ensure economic, environmental,…
Our mission is to build a unique institute that bridges basic research and drug discovery, and that attracts the best and brightest scientists, physicians and students to work together synergistically to find cures for neglected human…
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.
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Movement Strategy Center and the most unlike its peers is Totem Technologies. 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 25 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) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
61 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. 61 of the 94 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 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center ↗
- Who funds THE JONSSON CANCER CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TOTEM TECHNOLOGIES ↗
- Who funds THE CLEAR FUND ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR NATURAL MEDICINE ↗
- Who funds THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds CANCER FOUNDATION OF SANTA BARBARA ↗
- Who funds KINDERING CENTER ↗
- Who funds GIVEDIRECTLY INC ↗
- Who funds NEW HARVEST INC ↗
- Who funds CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL ↗
- Who funds MULTIPLIER ↗
- Who funds The Life You Can Save ↗
- Who funds SANTA BARBARA CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL ISLANDS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE FOUNDATION FOR SANTA BARBARA CITY COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds BROWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF PROJECT ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO MUSEUM OF MODERN ART ↗
- Who funds THE HUMANE LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds CHARITY GLOBAL INC ↗
- Who funds THE GLOBAL HUNGER PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CARPINTERIA ARTS CENTER ↗
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: Santa Barbara Foundation · Ann Jackson Family Foundation · Hutton Foundation Dba Hutton Parker Foundation · Mosher Foundation · California Community Foundation · Williams-Corbett Foundation · Latkin Charitable Foundation · George Isaac Foundation · June G Outhwaite Charitable Trust JS Poucher KL Englert & CM Cooney Co-Tr · James S Bower Foundation · The Wood-Claeyssens Foundation · Silicon Valley 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 Lopker Family 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.
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 Lopker Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Lopker Family 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.