· Private foundation
Red Husky 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 $10k1 grant · $2k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $94k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| San Francisco Museum of Modern Art | $49,500 |
| Asian Art Museum Foundation of San Francisco | $44,200 |
| United States Dressage Foundation | $2,000 |
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 14% of your 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 87% of Red Husky Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
6 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 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, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
- VCVanguard Charitable Endowment Fund2× · 2019–2020 · $41M
- AAASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO5× · 2018–2025 · $5.3M · revenue -44%
- SFSAN FRANCISCO MUSEUM OF MODERN ART5× · 2019–2025 · $297k · revenue -17%
Funded once
- TATHE ASIA SOCIETYone grant, 2024 · $145k · revenue -4%
- ACASIAN CULTURAL COUNCIL INCone grant, 2023 · $97k · revenue +23%
- SFSAN FRANCISCO BALLET ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2022 · $95k · revenue +11%
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.
Nurture empathy and connection by engaging communities with socially relevant contemporary art
Across the fields of performing arts, visual arts, education and outreach, business & policy, astc provides insight, generates ideas, and promotes collaboration to address present challenges and create a shared future. astc operates as a…
We believe opera is a uniquely compelling, entertaining and emotionally thrilling art form. our mission is to bring together growing audiences to experience opera's transformative power.
The philadelphia museum of art - in partnership with the city, the region, and art museums around the globe - seeks to preserve, enhance, interpret, and extend the reach of its great collection in particular, and the visual arts in…
The huntington library, art museum, and botanical gardens shares its world-renowned collections to support scholarship, foster learning, inspire creativity, and offer transformative experiences for diverse audiences.
*increase and diffusion of knowledge* is the mission set forth by james smithson. the smithsonian endeavors to shape the future by preserving our heritage, discovering new knowledge, and sharing our resources with the world.
To create relevant and transformative experiences through the study, preservation, presentation and creation of art.
Japan society is the premier organization connecting japanese arts, culture, business, and society with audiences in new york and around the world. in fy2024, attendance onsite was 36.9k with 3.3k participating in online programs.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Asian Art Museum Foundation of San Francisco and the most unlike its peers is Southern California Equestrian Sports. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 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. 17 of the 25 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 ASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO MUSEUM OF MODERN ART ↗
- Who funds COMMITTEE OF 100 INC ↗
- Who funds THE ASIA SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds ASIAN CULTURAL COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO BALLET ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds CHINESE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds ASIA SOCIETY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EQUESTRIAN SPORTS ↗
- Who funds REDF ↗
- Who funds Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART ↗
- Who funds Albertine Foundation ↗
- Who funds SOLOMON R GUGGENHEIM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HRJ CHARITIES INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES DRESSAGE FEDERATION ↗
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 Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · The San Francisco Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Red Husky 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.