Loading…
· Private foundation
MARGIE AND ROBERT E PETERSEN FOUNDATION
This foundation does not accept unsolicited requests — it funds preselected organizations.
$615k
Granted FY2022
3
Grants
3
Communities
$215k
Largest
01What you fund
0161% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2022.
Arts & Culture$78MPhilanthropy$14MHealth$10MCrime & Legal$8.4MYouth Development$6.6MEducation$1.4MHuman Services$775kOther$75M
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2018
youth
2019
—
2020
—
2021
youthautomotive
2022
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2022 · 3 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$215,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
- THE EHE FOUNDATION$215,000
- SOCIETY OF THE LITTLE FLOWER$215,000
- ALEX XYDIAS CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE A$185,000
02The need
04
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY17–21, $775k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
35%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$67M · 14 repeat orgs$127M to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +94% since the first grant, against +11% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2022, 11 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
14
22
Total granted
$67M
$127M
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+94%
+11%
Still filing today
36%
50%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
EducationYouth DevelopmentArts & CultureHealthPhilanthropyCrime & LegalOther
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
- PCPASADENA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION2× · 2019–2021 · $14M · revenue +95% · 32% of their budget
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER2× · 2017–2018 · $9.0M · revenue +20%- NMNEIGHBORHOOD MUSIC SCHOOL3× · 2017–2021 · $3.4M · revenue +94%
Funded once
- PAPETERSEN AUTOMOTIVE MUSEUMgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $74M · revenue +72%
- CHCHILDRENS HOSPITALone grant, 2019 · $25M
- NFNRA FOUNDATIONone grant, 2018 · $8.1M · revenue -7%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles
Tmc strives to deepen the cultural lives of every resident of los angeles county and continue creating an increasingly relevant, multidisciplinary performing arts center.
Arts & Culture
2
Ucla Foundation
The mission of the ucla foundation is to actively promote philanthropy and manage donated resources for the advancement of ucla.
Education
3
Armory Center for the Arts
The armory center for the arts' mission is to nurture our community and its young people by creating, learning, and presenting art to advance equity and social justice.we envision joyful, healthy, and equitable communities shaped by…
Arts & Culture
4
California Academy of Sciences
To regenerate the natural world through science, learning, and collaboration
Arts & Culture
5
Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles
The foundation is the largest manager of charitable assets and leader in planned giving solutions for greater los angeles jewish philanthropists through its various programs.
Philanthropy
6
Ucla Alumni Association
The mission of the ucla alumni association is to enrich the lives of alumni and involve them in the future of ucla.
Education
7
Cedars-Sinai Health System
To operate for the benefit of and to support specified nonprofit healthcare organizations.
Health
8
Segerstrom Center for the Arts
Developing and operating a major performing arts center presenting the finest in performing arts.
Arts & Culture
9
Pasadena Bio Collaborative Incubator
Pasadena bio collaborative incubator is a nonprofit organization focused on economic development and job creation in southern california. we encourage the growth of an innovative biotechnology industry by providing educational/training…
Science & Tech
10
Cedars-Sinai Medical Care Foundation
To enhance cedars-sinai's ability to effectively and efficiently deliver health care services.
Health
11
Children's Hospital Los Angeles
Promotion and advancement of children's health through patient care, research, and education.
Health
12
Los Angeles City College Foundation
To develop philanthropic support for the students of los angeles city college (lacc).
Education
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Club of Hollywood Inc and the most unlike its peers is Art Center College of Design. 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
16 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
6
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
11/16
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Arts & Culture$77,815,425Other$74,758,300Philanthropy$13,510,000Health$10,215,000Crime & Legal$8,423,169Youth Development$6,585,000Education$1,414,000Human Services$775,000
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 PETERSEN AUTOMOTIVE MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds PASADENA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds NRA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD MUSIC SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD ↗
- Who funds THE PAINTED TURTLE ↗
- Who funds THE EHE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE SEED FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JOURNEY HOUSE ↗
- Who funds BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds CASA OF VENTURA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds PUT ON THE BRAKES ↗
- Who funds PASADENA CITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ART CENTER COLLEGE OF DESIGN ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR OAK PARK ↗
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.
California Community FoundationCA18.2× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: California Community Foundation · The Rose Hills Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Pasadena Community Foundation · The Ahmanson Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 organisation MARGIE AND ROBERT E PETERSEN 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~17 months of operating runway; revenue contracted over 8 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 951775142 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 17 months of cash on hand.
- WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 67% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Margie and Robert E Petersen Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Margie and Robert E Petersen Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines