Does Richard and Harriet Orkand Charitable & Educational Foundation accept unsolicited applications?

Its most recent filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and does not take unsolicited requests. Check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

Which funders back the same organizations as Richard and Harriet Orkand Charitable & Educational Foundation?

Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include California Community Foundation, Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles, The Ralph M Parsons Foundation.

Richard and Harriet Orkand Charitable & Educational Foundation

Richard and Harriet Orkand Charitable & Educational Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Richard and Harriet Orkand Charitable & Educational 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.

$68k

Granted FY2025still arriving

Grants FY2025still arriving

States reached

$13k

Largest

01What it funds

01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$299kHousing & Shelter$122kInternational$74kArts & Culture$72kEducation$62kCivil Rights$60kHuman Services$25kReligion$20kOther$0

02FY2025 · 53 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

Under $10k52 grants · $55k
$10k–50k1 grant · $13k

$1,000

Median grant

States reached

$1.3M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
VENICE FAMILY CLINIC	$12,500
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS	$4,000
FRIENDS OF THE LA PHILHARMONIC	$3,500
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION	$3,000
CASA OF LOS ANGELES	$2,500
EVERYCHILD FOUNDATION	$2,500
JEWISH WORLD WATCH	$2,500
KPCC	$2,500
KCET	$2,000
RAND CORPORATION	$2,000
CHILDREN'S INSTITUTE INC	$2,000
BEND THE ARC	$1,500
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION	$1,500
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NEVE SHALOM WAH	$1,500
THE PEOPLE CONCERN	$1,500

02The need

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 (FY18–25, $126k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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.

Which US states its grants reach

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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.

$740k · 58 repeat orgs$21k to everyone else

58 repeat relationships: 51 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$740k

$20k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%

+154%

Still filing today

64%

10%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

HealthEducationArts & CultureHuman ServicesCivil RightsReligionOther

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

VENICE FAMILY CLINIC
7× · 2018–2025 · $255k · revenue +114%
TP
THE PEOPLE CONCERN
6× · 2020–2025 · $110k · revenue +72%
PU
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
2× · 2018–2020 · $50k · revenue +45%

Funded once

IG
Individual grant recipient
one grant, 2024 · $5k
TI
TEMPLE ISAIAH
one grant, 2018 · $5k
IG
Individual grant recipient
one grant, 2023 · $5k

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.

Association of California School Administrators

The association serves its members by creating resources that enable california school administrators to develop and apply creative leadership and management skills and in turn, improve the educational process for all students.

—

California Apartment Association

The organization's mission is to represent the ethical members of the rental housing industry in all aspects of government affairs within the state of california, and to provide information, products and services which contribute to the…

—

Academy of Television Arts and Sciences

The Television Academy is dedicated to celebrating excellence, innovation and the advancement of the telecommunications arts and sciences through recognition, education and leadership, while fostering a diverse, inclusive and accessible…

—

The American Institute of Architects California

The AIA California, in collaboration with local components, is the voice of the architectural profession.

—

Association of Legal Administrators

Ala is the catalyst for growth by providing: diverse educational experiences, engaged peer communities, strategic solutions, dynamic resources, and trusted networks.

—

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

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…

—

Jewish Federation Council of Greater La

Based on jewish values, the jewish federation of greater los angeles convenes and leads the community and leverages its resources to assure the continuity of the jewish people, support a secure state of israel, care for jews in need here…

Philanthropy

California Dental Association Foundation

The foundation's mission is to improve the oral health of all californians by supporting the dental profession and its efforts to meet community needs.

Science & Tech

American Civil Liberties Union Fund of the District of Columbia

Preservation of civil liberties through litigation and public education.

—

University of La Verne

The university of la verne offers a distinctive and relevant educational experience to a diverse population of traditional-age, adult, and graduate learners, preparing them for successful careers and a commitment to lifelong learning…

Education

Los Angeles County Bar Association (Lacba)

Meeting the professional needs of los angeles lawyers, and improving the administration of justice.

—

Altamed Health Services Corporation

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.

Health

How this is measured

The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Institute Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Retina Vitreous 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

40 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 40 of the 70 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

40/40

Grantees still filing

30/40

Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Health$292,250Other$195,500Human Services$126,000Education$76,170International$28,000Arts & Culture$25,800Civil Rights$17,000

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

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.

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.

California Community FoundationCA24× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: California Community Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Weingart Foundation · Liberty Hill Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Jewish Communal Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc

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 Richard and Harriet Orkand Charitable & Educational Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Richard and Harriet Orkand Charitable & Educational Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%

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.

Play a game based on Richard and Harriet Orkand Charitable & Educational’s 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