· Public charity
Neighbors for a Better San Francisco
The organization's charitable and educational purposes include, but are not limited to: the development of, and education of the public with respect to, public policy issues that will improve the quality of live and governance in San Francisco, including the promotion of good government practices, the defense of civil and property…
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $384,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $393,130 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $8,630 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k5 grants · $125k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $260k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Inspire SF | $60,000 |
| Voice of San Francisco Inc | $50,000 |
| Asian Pacific American CC | $50,000 |
| Asian Inc | $50,000 |
| SF Parent Coalition | $50,000 |
| TogetherSF | $40,000 |
| CA Friends of Tenants Caucus | $29,500 |
| Moonstar Charitable Org | $20,000 |
| SF Assn of Realtors Found | $20,000 |
| Planned Parenthood of N CA | $15,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of your 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.
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 +55% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 7 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, 26% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $285k 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
- SCSTOP CRIME SF2× · 2021–2023 · $120k · 53% of their budget
- SFSan Francisco Parent Coalition2× · 2023–2024 · $100k · revenue +55% · 27% of their budget
- SFSAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS FOUNDATION3× · 2022–2024 · $45k · revenue +73%
Funded once
- GLGBTBmedia LLCone grant, 2022 · $100k
- MBMr Badly Productions LLCone grant, 2022 · $100k
- SCSISTERS CIRCLE WOMEN SUPPORTone grant, 2022 · $20k
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.
To support effective government policies in San Francisco
To educate the public and advocate for sound policies on issues impacting the City of South San Francisco, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the State of California.
The Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco is dedicated to combating the displacement crisis gripping our city by building the power of working-class tenants of color to take on the real estate industry and win housing justice for all.…
Represent interests of Asian-Pacific Island Women.
Promote public understanding of policies supporting the creation of well-designed, well-located housing at all levels of affordability for residents of the Bay Area, California.
PPS-SF's mission is to promote the fundamental value of public education and pursue the success of every public school by sharing knowledge, bridging communities, and informing policy.
The Organization is a citywide collaborative of housing counseling agencies that helps diverse and underserved households achieve and sustain homeownership in San Francisco.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Together Sf and the most unlike its peers is Moonstar Charitable Organization. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 15 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 STOP CRIME SF ↗
- Who funds San Francisco Parent Coalition ↗
- Who funds ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds VOICE OF SAN FRANCISCO INC ↗
- Who funds ASIAN INC ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Together SF ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA FRIENDS OF TENANTS CAUCUS ↗
- Who funds GLOBALSF ↗
- Who funds MOONSTAR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo 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: San Francisco Association of Realtors Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift 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 Neighbors for a Better San Francisco 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 Neighbors for a Better San Francisco?
Find your warmest path to Neighbors for a Better San Francisco 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.