Skip to content
Phyllis C Wattis Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Phyllis C Wattis Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$484k
Granted FY2024still arriving
42
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Arts & Culture$4.8MEducation$103kPhilanthropy$100kYouth Development$68kCivil Rights$30kHealth$18kInternational$18kEnvironment$15kOther$0
02FY2024 · 42 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k10 grants · $67k
  • $10k–50k32 grants · $418k
$12,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$9.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Anne Bluethenthal$15,000
The Playwrights Foundation Inc$15,000
CounterPulse$15,000
Dancers' Group$15,000
Kulintang Arts Inc$15,000
FACTSF$15,000
Del Sol Performing Arts Organizatio$15,000
Canyon Cinema Foundation$15,000
SOMArts$15,000
San Francisco Contemporary Music Pl$15,000
Magic Theatre Inc$15,000
Left Coast Chamber Ensemble$15,000
Circuit Network$15,000
San Francisco Bay Area Theatre Comp$15,000
Shotgun Players Inc$13,500
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY20–20, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Central Works: $3k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.5M · 72 repeat orgs$725k to everyone else

72 repeat relationships: 35 still active in FY2024, 37 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

72
59

Total granted

$4.5M
$675k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+26%
+26%

Still filing today

89%
78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Arts & CulturePhilanthropyEducationRecreation & SportsEmploymentYouth DevelopmentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • DG
    DANCERS GROUP
    7× · 2017–2024 · $317k · revenue +77%
  • IF
    Intersection for the Arts
    8× · 2017–2024 · $205k · revenue +48%
  • S
    SOMArts
    6× · 2019–2024 · $156k · revenue +51%

Funded once

  • SF
    SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL ARTS FESTIVAL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $40k · revenue +221%
  • GG
    GOLDEN GATE PERFORMING ARTS INC
    one grant, 2019 · $35k · revenue -46%
  • CC
    CHINESE CULTURE FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCOgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $35k · revenue +241%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
On the Boards

On the Boards' mission is to invest in leading contemporary performing artists near and far and connect them to a diverse range of communities interested in forward-thinking art and ideas.

—
2
Los Angeles International Dance Festival
—
3
Los Angeles Performance Practice

As creative producers, we are devoted to the production and presentation of groundbreaking experiences in contemporary performance that use innovative approaches to collaboration, technology, and social engagement. As a service…

Arts & Culture
4
Dandelion Dancetheater

Dandelion is situated at the crossroads of dance, theater, music, community activism, healing, and new performance forms. The company is committed to the individual and intersecting artistic visions of Kimiko Guthrie and Eric Kupers. Our…

Arts & Culture
5
Nava Dance Theatre

Nava Dance Theatre uses the south Indian dance form as a medium for artistic reflection and discovery.

Arts & Culture
6
California Institute of Contemporary Art
—
7
San Francisco Basque Folkloric Groups
Arts & Culture
8
Oakland Ballet Company

Oakland Ballet Company's mission is to inspire the community by keeping the tradition of ballet exciting, vibrant and accessible.

Arts & Culture
9
Occidental Center for the Arts

Occidental Center for the Arts exists to provide a welcoming and accessible venue for the performing and visual arts in Sonoma County California for local regional national and international artists. our mission is to enrich our community…

Arts & Culture
10
Ballet Afsaneh Art & Culture Society

Promote the expressive arts of the historic silk road region of Eurasia

Arts & Culture
11
San Francisco Art Studio Foundation
—
12
The Studio Theatre Inc

Studio Theatre produces exceptional contemporary theatre in deliberately intimate spaces, fostering a more thoughtful, more empathetic, and more connected community, in Washington DC and beyond.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is San Francisco Performances Inc; the most unlike its peers is Art Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

117 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 117 of the 136 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
47
Early backer (in before they grew)
114/117
Grantees still filing
78/117
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DANCERS GROUP: $316,500 · Arts & CultureDANCERS GROUPIntersection for the Arts: $205,100 · Arts & CultureIntersection for the ArtsSOMArts: $155,500 · Arts & CultureShotgun Players: $147,750 · Arts & Culture+88 more: $2,956,725 · Arts & Culture+88 moreCounterPulse: $145,000 · OtherCounterPulseODC: $97,750 · OtherODCTHE LAB SF: $82,750 · OtherTHE LAB SFJoe Goode Performance Group: $69,000 · OtherJoe Goode Performa…SF International Arts FestivaL INC: $48,000 · OtherSF International A…EPIPHANY DANCE THEATER: $30,000 · OtherSan Francisco Contemporary Music Pl: $30,000 · OtherQCC-The Center for Lesbian Gay Bise: $30,000 · Other+27 more: $318,300 · Other+27 moreZACCHO SF: $110,500 · PhilanthropyARTCOUNCIL INC DBA ARTADIA: $90,000 · PhilanthropyNorthern California Grantmakers: $90,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $10,000 · PhilanthropyWomens Audio Mission: $120,750 · EmploymentCALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF THE ARTS: $78,000 · Education+1 more: $2,500 · EducationDestiny Arts Center: $60,000 · Recreation & SportsCREATIVITY EXPLORED INC: $18,000 · Health
Arts & Culture$3,781,575Other$850,800Philanthropy$300,500Employment$120,750Education$80,500Recreation & Sports$60,000Health$18,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDANCERS GROUP: $316,500 over 7y, 2.4% of budgetIntersection for the Arts: $205,100 over 8y, 1.4% of budgetSOMArts: $155,500 over 6y, 1.8% of budgetShotgun Players: $147,750 over 6y, 2.8% of budgetCounterPulse: $145,000 over 6y, 2.6% of budgetWomens Audio Mission: $120,750 over 5y, 2.0% of budgetBrava for Women in the Arts dba Brava Theater Center: $119,000 over 6y, 3.0% of budgetFRESH MEAT PRODUCTIONS: $114,750 over 6y, 5.8% of budgetInterMusic SF: $114,750 over 7y, 3.8% of budgetZACCHO SF: $110,500 over 6y, 7.5% of budgetThe Z Space Studio: $102,500 over 4y, 2.0% of budgetBAYVIEW OPERA HOUSE: $101,000 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetKala Art Institute: $99,750 over 5y, 2.3% of budgetRoot Division: $98,000 over 5y, 3.0% of budgetARTCOUNCIL INC DBA ARTADIA: $90,000 over 5y, 3.5% of budgetNorthern California Grantmakers: $90,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetAXIS Dance Company: $87,750 over 5y, 2.6% of budgetProject Bandaloop: $87,000 over 5y, 2.5% of budgetCenter for Cultural Innovation: $85,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetTHE LAB SF: $82,750 over 6y, 9.2% of budgetSouthern Exposure: $80,500 over 5y, 3.7% of budgetCALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF THE ARTS: $78,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetThe Aurora Theatre Company: $75,000 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetTHE LIVING EARTH SHOW: $72,700 over 4y, 9.1% of budgetHEADLANDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $72,500 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetNew Performance Traditions: $72,000 over 5y, 2.9% of budgetCutting Ball Theater: $71,500 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetJoe Goode Performance Group: $69,000 over 5y, 3.1% of budgetPLAYGROUND: $63,000 over 5y, 2.9% of budgetAFRICAN-AMERICAN SHAKESPEARE COMPANY: $62,500 over 3y, 4.6% of budgetTheatre Bay Area: $62,000 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetDestiny Arts Center: $60,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetJESS CURTISGRAVITY INC: $52,000 over 5y, 5.5% of budgetBridge Live Arts Prev Hope Mohr Dance: $49,000 over 6y, 9.2% of budgetOAKLAND THEATER PROJECT: $47,500 over 3y, 4.1% of budgetOpera Parallle: $47,500 over 4y, 1.5% of budgetMAGIC THEATRE INC: $42,500 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetCircuit Network: $42,500 over 2y, 13% of budgetFrameline Inc: $42,500 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetIMMERSIVE ARTS ALLIANCE: $41,025 over 2y, 15% of budgetPush Dance Company: $37,500 over 2y, 15% of budgetLa Pea Cultural Center Inc: $35,000 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetGOLDEN GATE PERFORMING ARTS INC: $35,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCHINESE CULTURE FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO: $35,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetDance Film SF Inc: $35,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetDEL SOL PERFORMING ARTS ORGANIZATION: $35,000 over 2y, 8.4% of budgetEPIPHANY DANCE THEATER: $30,000 over 2y, 7.9% of budgetART21 INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds DANCERS GROUP ↗
  • Who funds Intersection for the Arts ↗
  • Who funds SOMArts ↗
  • Who funds Shotgun Players ↗
  • Who funds CounterPulse ↗
  • Who funds Womens Audio Mission ↗
  • Who funds Brava for Women in the Arts dba Brava Theater Center ↗
  • Who funds FRESH MEAT PRODUCTIONS ↗
  • Who funds InterMusic SF ↗
  • Who funds ZACCHO SF ↗
  • Who funds The Z Space Studio ↗
  • Who funds BAYVIEW OPERA HOUSE ↗
  • Who funds Kala Art Institute ↗
  • Who funds Root Division ↗
  • Who funds ARTCOUNCIL INC DBA ARTADIA ↗
  • Who funds Northern California Grantmakers ↗
  • Who funds AXIS Dance Company ↗
  • Who funds Project Bandaloop ↗
  • Who funds Center for Cultural Innovation ↗
  • Who funds THE LAB SF ↗
  • Who funds Southern Exposure ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF THE ARTS ↗
  • Who funds The Aurora Theatre Company ↗
  • Who funds THE LIVING EARTH SHOW ↗
  • Who funds HEADLANDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS ↗
  • Who funds New Performance Traditions ↗
  • Who funds Cutting Ball Theater ↗
  • Who funds Joe Goode Performance Group ↗
  • Who funds PLAYGROUND ↗
  • Who funds AFRICAN-AMERICAN SHAKESPEARE COMPANY ↗
  • Who funds Theatre Bay Area ↗
  • Who funds Destiny Arts Center ↗
  • Who funds JESS CURTISGRAVITY INC ↗
  • Who funds Bridge Live Arts Prev Hope Mohr Dance ↗
  • Who funds OAKLAND THEATER PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds Opera Parallle ↗
  • Who funds MAGIC THEATRE INC ↗
  • Who funds Circuit Network ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Zellerbach Family…Kenneth Rainin Founda…Fleishhacker Foundati…The William & Flora H…Walter and Elise Haas…The Sam Mazza Foundat…The San Francisco Fou…Center for Cultural I…East Bay Community Fo…The Bernard Osher Fou…The Map Fund IncGerbode Foundation
The Zellerbach Family FoundationCA147.8× affinity72 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Zellerbach Family Foundation · Kenneth Rainin Foundation · Fleishhacker Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Walter and Elise Haas Fund · The Sam Mazza Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Center for Cultural Innovation · East Bay Community Foundation · The Bernard Osher Foundation · The Map Fund Inc · Gerbode Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Phyllis C Wattis Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Phyllis C Wattis Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    46report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Phyllis C Wattis Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Phyllis C Wattis 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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 136 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Phyllis C Wattis’ filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home