· Community foundation
Quakes Foundation
To provide assistance with health and fitness programs for local youth in schools and community centers, and to provide tickets for athletic events to underprivileged children.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $205,550 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $232,077 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $26,527 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–50k2 grants · $45k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $161k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PG&E 5000 MEALS GRANT | $110,050 |
| 50K MEALS | $50,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $35,000 |
| WORKING PARTNERSHIPS USA | $10,000 |
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 (FY18–21, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +61% since the first grant, against +4% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 4 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, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $206k 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
- MMISCELLANEOUS3× · 2020–2022 · $81k
- P7PLEDGE 743× · 2021–2023 · $77k
- UFUFW FOUNDATION2× · 2020–2021 · $28k · revenue +61%
Funded once
- SJSAN JOSE STATE - EAST SIDE PROMISE SHIP - AZUSENA REYESone grant, 2019 · $31k
- TTTHE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITYgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $29k · revenue +41%
- ARAlum Rock Union Elementary School Districtone grant, 2020 · $21k
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.
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,…
To promote philanthropy to make santa cruz county a better place to live, now and in the future.we bring together people, ideas, and resources to inspire philanthropy and accomplish great things.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Independent nonpartisan newsroom serving Santa Cruz County, California we are all watching and engaged in our local government, our needs are addressed, democracy works better and our community is stronger.
Unitedly is a nonprofit organization based in San Mateo County, California. Unitedly was established to ensure Asian families and communities have access to equitable opportunities and resources to thrive in the San Francisco Bay Area.
regions most pressing social issues. We pool resources, share information, work together, and learn from each other. NCG recognizes that the challenges facing our communities are complex, entrenched and interconnected.
CAUSE's mission is to build grassroots power to realize social, economic and environmental justice for the people of the Central Coast Region through policy research, leadership development, organizing and advocacy.
California Coastkeeper Alliance unites Waterkeeper programs statewide to fight for swimmable, fishable, and drinkable waters for all Californians.
California Donor Table anchors a hub of donors, foundations, and community leaders. We pool together our resources to shape California into a truly democratic state that works for the people, not the powerful. Rooted in our commitment to…
Our mission is to help manufacturers thrive, innovate, and create good jobs, for a more diverse and sustainable Bay Area.
Active San Gabriel Valley (ActiveSGV) is a community-based environmental advocacy and public health non-profit organization. Our mission is to promote a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley.
The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Valley Community Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Blood Cancer United Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
19 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. 19 of the 60 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 THE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds UFW FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NORTH VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
- Who funds HUNGER AT HOME ↗
- Who funds Working Partnerships USA ↗
- Who funds POSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE NORTH STATE ↗
- Who funds COACHING CORPS ↗
- Who funds CYPRESS MANDELA TRAINING CENTER ↗
- Who funds Local Color ↗
- Who funds VEGGIELUTION ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The California Endowment · The San Francisco Foundation · Rotary Club of San Jose Foundation · The Health Trust · Agilent Technologies Foundation · The Sobrato Family Foundation · Tides Foundation · John S and James L Knight Foundation · Bright Funds Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation 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 organization Quakes 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 Quakes Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Quakes 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.