· Private foundation
Red Leaf Family 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 FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k19 grants · $65k
- $10k–50k20 grants · $242k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ALTAMED FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| NATIONAL DAY LABORERS ORGANIZING NETWORK | $15,000 |
| IMMIGRANT DEFENDERS LAW CENTER | $15,000 |
| CALIFORNIA LATINAS FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE | $15,000 |
| MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE | $15,000 |
| WRAAP | $15,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES (PPLA) | $15,000 |
| LAANE | $11,500 |
| PRO PUBLICA | $10,000 |
| NATIVE PUBLIC MEDIA | $10,000 |
| DOWTOWN WOMENS CENTER | $10,000 |
| IDEPSCA | $10,000 |
| CHIRLA | $10,000 |
| BREANNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | $10,000 |
| COALITION TO ABOLISH SLAVERY AND TRAFFICKING (CAST) | $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 (FY21–25, $64k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% 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.
29 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 23 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, 43% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $172k 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
- MSMEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE4× · 2022–2025 · $75k · revenue +175%
- CSCALIFORNIA SCIENCE CENTER FOUNDATION3× · 2021–2023 · $60k · revenue +62%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES2× · 2022–2023 · $45k · revenue +28%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2024 · $25k
- JIJOVENES INCone grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue +23%
- NJNPR-COLLABORATIVE JOURNALISM NETWORKone grant, 2024 · $25k
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 union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
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 distribute public affairs and other educational information in order to create an electronic bridge between californians and their public officials, and, in the process educate a new generation of voting citizens and civic leaders who…
The california dental association is committed to the success of our members in service to their patients and the public.
California western school of law is an independent, aba/aals and wasc senior college and university commission (wscuc) accredited s.d. law school that prepares graduates for the practice of law through a carefully sequenced program of…
To eliminate disparities in health care access and outcomes by providing superior quality health and human services through an integrated world-class delivery system for latino, multi-ethnic underserved communities in southern california.
The league of california community foundations promotes and strengthens community foundations in california. through collaboration and shared learning among member foundations and building partnerships with private and public entities, we…
Chamber's mission: design and advance opportunities and solutions for a thriving regional economy that are inclusive and globally competitive. 1) advocacy - be a bold advocate for business as a driver of a strong economy that enables…
Meeting the professional needs of los angeles lawyers, and improving the administration of justice.
Preservation of civil liberties through litigation and public education.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Justice Action Center JAC pilots an innovative model that advances the rights of immigrant communities by connecting cutting-edge impact litigation and compelling narrative and communications content. The purpose of JAC is to advance the…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Family Philanthropy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Pacific Heart Lung and Blood Institute. 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 28 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) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
49 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. 49 of the 88 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 MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA SCIENCE CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA LATINAS FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds JOVENES INC ↗
- Who funds WELLS BRING HOPE ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds ALTAMED FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR THE PACIFIC-ASIAN FAMILY INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds JUSTICE IN AGING ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds Immigrant Defenders Law Center ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES ALLIANCE FOR A NEW ECONOMY ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Los Angeles ↗
- Who funds REED INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR NONPROFIT NEWS ↗
- Who funds COALITION TO ABOLISH SLAVERY & TRAFFICKING ↗
- Who funds PACIFIC BATTLESHIP CENTER ↗
- Who funds PBS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIVE PUBLIC MEDIA INC ↗
- Who funds REFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds DEMOCRACY FORWARD ↗
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: Weingart Foundation · California Community Foundation · Liberty Hill Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · The California Wellness Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · The Ford Foundation · Conrad N Hilton Foundation · The California Endowment · Sempra Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Tides 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 Leaf Family 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.
- Reed Institute — 1% 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 Red Leaf Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Red Leaf Family 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.