· Private foundation
Rosenberg Ach Foundation
Its FY2024 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k12 grants · $52k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $65k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $359k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| The Nature Conservancy | $134,000 |
| UCSF FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| Trout Unlimited | $75,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| San Francisco Film Society (SFFILM) | $30,000 |
| Urban School | $20,000 |
| Reproductive Freedom for All (NARAL) | $15,000 |
| 10000 Degrees | $5,100 |
| Golden State Opportunity Fund | $5,000 |
| Greenlight Clinic | $5,000 |
| New Israel Fund | $5,000 |
| Henry's Fork Foundation | $5,000 |
| Students Rising Above (SRA) | $5,000 |
| Sustainable Conservation | $5,000 |
| SF Jazz | $5,000 |
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 (FY18–24, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 40% 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +33% since the first grant, against +9% for the ones you funded once.
29 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2024, 16 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, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $115k 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
PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA7× · 2017–2023 · $475k · revenue +6%- TBTHE BREAKTHROUGH COLLABORATIVE3× · 2017–2022 · $35k · revenue +240%
- TTThe Thacher School Inc4× · 2017–2020 · $35k · revenue +32%
Funded once
- UNUCSF - NERUOSCIENCES INITIATIVEone grant, 2019 · $200k
- URUCSF - RAFFone grant, 2017 · $200k
- RLRESOURCES LEGACY FUNDgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue +114%
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 resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
To ensure coast redwood forests in the santa cruz mountains thrive for generations to come. since 1900, sempervirens has protected more than 36,000 acres. learn more about our mission, vision, and strategic plan through 2030 at:…
The salish sea schools mission is to awaken curiosity and deepen connections with the sea through shore and sea exploration programs for all ages.
To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.
Maintain the swan valley's unique natural resources and ensure that a vibrant human community can sustain itself through stewardship, education, economic viability, and conservation on public and private lands.
To improve fisheries resources in the state of california.
Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
The academy is a renowned scientific and educational institution with a mission to regenerate the natural world through science, learning, and collaboration. based in san francisco's golden gate park, it is home to a world-class aquarium,…
Caltrout's mission is ensuring healthy water and resilient wild fish for a better california. we share a common vision of a california where healthy waters flow from headwaters to sea. where the diversity and resilience of our waters and…
The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…
Increase societal understanding of the earth system through scientific research and education.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wild Salmon Center and the most unlike its peers is Donner Summit Avalanche Dogs. 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 35 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% 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.
40 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 40 of the 75 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 PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds TROUT UNLIMITED aka THE ARIZONA COUNCIL OF TROUT UNLIMITED INC ↗
- Who funds RESOURCES LEGACY FUND ↗
- Who funds THE BREAKTHROUGH COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds The Thacher School Inc ↗
- Who funds SUMMER SEARCH ↗
- Who funds HENRYS FORK FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SWEETWATER SPECTRUM INC ↗
- Who funds 10000 DEGREES ↗
- Who funds Sustainable Conservation ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO JAZZ ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds SILVER CREEK ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds GREENBELT ALLIANCEPEOPLE FOR OPEN SPACE ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds TROUT UNLIMITED INC ↗
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: The San Francisco Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Marin Community Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Swig Foundation · Oberndorf Family Foundation · Esb Charitable Foundation · Laural Foundation · Ishiyama Foundation · The Griffith Family Foundation · Robert and Dana Emery Family Foundation Rockefeller Trust Company · The Stanley S Langendorf 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 Rosenberg Ach 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.
- Wild Salmon Center — 49% 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.