· Private foundation
Nia Community Foundation
Its FY2025 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k57 grants · $168k
- $10k–50k13 grants · $179k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE THRESHOLD FOUNDATION | $37,000 |
| SOLIDAIRE NETWORK INC | $20,000 |
| MOSAIC PROJECT | $15,000 |
| SOUTH YUBA RIVER CITIZENS LEAGUE | $14,000 |
| AMERICAN RIVERS INC | $12,000 |
| MCE SOCIAL CAPITAL | $10,610 |
| IGNITE | $10,000 |
| BAY AREA WOMEN LEADERS NETWORK | $10,000 |
| RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK | $10,000 |
| IGNITE | $10,000 |
| WOMEN MOVING MILLIONS INC | $10,000 |
| NDN COLLECTIVE INC | $10,000 |
| FRIENDSHIP HOUSE VILLAGE HEALING INC | $10,000 |
| GEORGE MARK CHILDRENS FUND | $7,500 |
| OAKLAND CHILDRENS FAIRYLAND INC | $7,500 |
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 (FY17–25, $275k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 85% 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 +43% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
94 repeat relationships — 35 still active in FY2025, 59 since wound down; 25 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $82k 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
- TFTHRESHOLD FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2025 · $197k · revenue +7%
- TMTHE MOSAIC PROJECT6× · 2017–2025 · $110k · revenue +2%
AMERICAN RIVERS INC8× · 2017–2025 · $66k · revenue +144%
Funded once
- IICAFUNDgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue +35%
- SMSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue +14%
- PFPOWERPAC FOUNDATIONone grant, 2018 · $11k · revenue -68%
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.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
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,…
Transform works to ensure that people of all incomes thrive in a world safe from climate chaos.
Serve as a partner, educator, and guide for philanthropy in reimagining practices that advance a thriving and just world.
Supporting industry transformation towards climate-positive and make green careers transitions and driving the adoption of green workforce development practices broadly.
New Roots Institute is a nonprofit empowering the next generation with knowledge and training to end factory farming.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
The Alliance for Collective Action convenes leaders of environmental and social movements to advance solutions for a thriving planet. We advance our mission through the Alliance Center building and community, as well as through Collective…
Our mission is to help manufacturers thrive, innovate, and create good jobs, for a more diverse and sustainable Bay Area.
EFIs mission is to transform the produce industry and the lives of farmworkers by facilitating collaboration among workers, agricultural employers, retail buyers and consumer advocates.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink and the most unlike its peers is Chico Feminist Womens Health Center dba Womens Health Specialists. 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 22 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) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 2% 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.
272 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. 272 of the 293 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 THRESHOLD FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE MOSAIC PROJECT ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds IGNITE ↗
- Who funds Rainforest Action Network ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA WOMEN LEADER NETWORK ↗
- Who funds PLAYWORKS EDUCATION ENERGIZED ↗
- Who funds OUTDOOR AFRO ↗
- Who funds WOMEN MOVING MILLIONS INC ↗
- Who funds The Pachamama Alliance ↗
- Who funds WOMEN DONORS NETWORK ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds George Mark Childrens Fund ↗
- Who funds Oakland Childrens Fairyland Inc ↗
- Who funds GREENPEACE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds DEMOCRACY NOW PRODUCTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds UltraViolet Education Fund ↗
- Who funds GIRLS INCORPORATED OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds The Edible Schoolyard Project dba The Alice Waters Institute ↗
- Who funds UNCOMMON LAW ↗
- Who funds REBECCA BENDER INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Earth Island Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES ↗
- Who funds City Surf Project ↗
- Who funds United Roots ↗
- Who funds AS YOU SOW ↗
- Who funds MULTIPLIER ↗
- Who funds ICAFUND ↗
- Who funds Empower Work Inc ↗
- Who funds The Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Foundation for National Progress ↗
- Who funds POSSIBILITY LABS ↗
- Who funds Solidaire Network Inc ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN WOMEN RISING ↗
- Who funds SOGOREA TE LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds SUN VALLEY INSTITUTE FOR RESILIENCE ↗
- Who funds SOUTH YUBA RIVER CITIZENS LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds SPONSORS FOR EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY 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: The San Francisco Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The California Wellness Foundation · The James Irvine Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Marin Community Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Tides Foundation · New Venture Fund · The California Endowment
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 Nia Community 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.
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc — 11% of income from government
- The Filmmakers Collaborative Inc — 1% of income from government
- Boston Foundation Inc — 0% 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 Nia Community Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Nia Community 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.