· Private foundation
Oak Tree Charitable Foundation
Its FY2025 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $1k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $115k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $313k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WINNERS FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| CARMA | $60,000 |
| THE FOUNDATION FOR THE HORSE | $52,500 |
| GRAYSON-JOCKEY CLUB RESEARCH FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| UC DAVIS FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| CALIFORNIA THOROUGHBRED HORSEMEN'S FOUNDATION | $45,000 |
| EDWIN J GREGSON FOUNDATION | $35,000 |
| RACING MEDICATION TESTING CONSORTIUM | $25,000 |
| CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY PASADENA | $10,000 |
| EDWIN CHARLES FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $89k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 95% 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.
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.
21 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 2 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, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $26k 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
- WFWINNERS FOUNDATION9× · 2017–2025 · $750k · revenue +63% · 32% of their budget
- GCGRAYSON-JOCKEY CLUB RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC6× · 2018–2025 · $315k · revenue +81%
- CSCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY GREATER SAN GABRIEL VALLEY5× · 2021–2025 · $200k · revenue +10%
Funded once
- UDUC DAVIS FOUNDATION CO SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINEone grant, 2024 · $50k
- ACALAMEDA COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2017 · $27k
- CCCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF LOS ANGELES INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +87%
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 communication alliance to network thoroughbred ex-racehorses (canter) provides retiring thoroughbred racehorses with opportunities for new careers.
To help develop veterinarians and fund research in Thoroughbred equine care and breeding within California.
To create an environment of education for the membership so as to bring about the betterment of the conditions for those involved in the agricultural production of california-bred thoroughbreds; to assist in all ways appropriate, including…
The ntra is a broadly defined membership association that is charged with increasing the popularity, welfare and integrity of thoroughbred racing.
The organization is dedicated to the improvement of thoroughbred breeding and racing. It fulfills that mandate by serving many segments of the industry through its subsidiary companies and by providing support to a wide range of industry…
The marin horse council is dedicated to preserving the historic culture, supporting the presence and ensuring the future of equestrians, horses and horse facilities throughout marin county, california. the council strives to promote and…
To foster and promote a healthy economic climate and a higher level of public acceptance of the thoroughbred horse racing industry. to work for the improvement of living and working conditions for the employees of members and to provide…
To conduct the breeders' cup world championships at the highest levels of quality, safety and integrity and to promote the growth of thoroughbred breeding, racing and sales through proactive leadership, innovation and service.
Ride On LA was organized to primarily promote the welfare of at-risk youth and people with any type of physical, mental or cognitive disability by means of equine assisted activities and therapies, and by providing instruction and…
The mission of the ushja is to unify and represent the hunter and jumper disciplines of equestrian sport through education, recognition and sport programs.
To help amateur equestrian athletes afford to train and compete at the national and international level.
To enhance the long-term viability of california agriculture through leadership development, which in turn benefits the people and communities that agriculture serves. we grow leaders who make a difference.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Jockey Club Safety Net Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Racing Officials Accreditationprogram Inc. 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 30 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 15% 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.
31 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. 31 of the 62 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 WINNERS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GRAYSON-JOCKEY CLUB RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds EDWIN J GREGSON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY GREATER SAN GABRIEL VALLEY ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EQUINE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE UC DAVIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA THOROUGHBRED HORSEMEN'S FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE FOUNDATION FOR THE HORSE FKA THE AAEP FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds RACING MEDICATION AND TESTING CONSORTIUM ↗
- Who funds THE JOCKEY CLUB SAFETY NET FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF LOS ANGELES INC ↗
- Who funds THOROUGHBRED CHARITIES OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds THE MIDNIGHT MISSION ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL JUSTICE LEARNING INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds RACING OFFICIALS ACCREDITATIONPROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED PEGASUS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds KIDS BIKE LANE ↗
- Who funds SUNFLOWER HILL ↗
- Who funds HARVEST PARK MUSIC BOOSTERS ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF THE EAST BAY ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 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 California Wellness Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The James Irvine Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
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 Oak Tree Charitable 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 Oak Tree Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Oak Tree Charitable 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.