· Private foundation
San Francisco Association of Realtors Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 90% of SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k19 grants · $41k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $39k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $218k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2135 INDIV 1520 ADULTS 615 CHILDREN | $217,812 |
| GLOBAL SF | $18,000 |
| MOONSTAR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION | $11,350 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTHERN CA | $10,000 |
| CHILDREN OF SHELTERS | $5,000 |
| SAN FRANCISCO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,000 |
| ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN COMMUNITY | $3,000 |
| HOMEOWNERSHIP OF SF | $3,000 |
| ST ANTHONY'S FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| APA HERITAGE FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| SISTER CIRCLE WOMEN SUPPORT NETWORK | $2,500 |
| ASIAN INC | $2,500 |
| PACIFIC ASIAN AMERICAN WOMEN BAY AR | $2,300 |
| CHINATOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION | $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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $32k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
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 +32% for the ones you funded once.
52 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2024, 39 since wound down; 10 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, 17% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $248k 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
- GGLOBALSF5× · 2018–2024 · $46k · revenue +4%
- COChildren of Shelters7× · 2017–2024 · $34k · revenue +15%
- SFSan Francisco Apartment Association4× · 2018–2024 · $18k · revenue +5%
Funded once
- 2I2516 INDIV 1782 ADULTS 734 CHILDRENone grant, 2023 · $253k
- 2I2312 INDIVIDUALSone grant, 2022 · $235k
- 4F428 FAMILIES 830 INDIVIDUALSone grant, 2021 · $193k
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.
Since 1978, our mission has been to preserve and perpetuate San Francisco's history and folklore and to celebrate its rich history of cultural diversity.
The Asian Law Caucus's mission is to promote, advance, and represent the legal and civil rights of Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities, recognizing that social, economic, political and racial inequalities continue to exist…
The center promotes the artistic and organizational growth of the San Francisco Bay Areas Asian Pacific arts community by organizing and presenting the annual United States of Asian America Festival
The Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco is dedicated to combating the displacement crisis gripping our city by building the power of working-class tenants of color to take on the real estate industry and win housing justice for all.…
To elevate underserved communities and gives voice to equality through education and contemporary art.
Promote public understanding of policies supporting the creation of well-designed, well-located housing at all levels of affordability for residents of the Bay Area, California.
PPS-SF's mission is to promote the fundamental value of public education and pursue the success of every public school by sharing knowledge, bridging communities, and informing policy.
Educational financial resources to LMI communities
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southeast Asian Development Center and the most unlike its peers is Community Youth Center. 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 32 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
85 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. 85 of the 165 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 GLOBALSF ↗
- Who funds Children of Shelters ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO PARKS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds San Francisco Apartment Association ↗
- Who funds ASIAN INC ↗
- Who funds APA HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MOONSTAR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds Beyond Differences ↗
- Who funds EQUALITY CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO FIRST TEE ↗
- Who funds 2018 San Francisco Inaugural Fund ↗
- Who funds CHINESE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds DRESS FOR SUCCESS SAN FRANCISCO ↗
- Who funds Chinese Newcomers Service Center ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds SELF-HELP FOR THE ELDERLY ↗
- Who funds Pacific Asian American Women Bay Area Coalition ↗
- Who funds RICHMOND DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds CHINESE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds WILLIE L BROWN JR INSTITUTE ON POLITICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE ↗
- Who funds CHICANA FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CA DBA CHICANA LATINA FOUNDATION ↗
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 · McNabb Foundation · Asian Pacific Fund · Jessie Cheng Charitable Foundation · Crankstart Foundation · United Way of the Bay Area · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Sutter Bay Hospitals · The PG&E Corporation Foundation · Bothin Foundation · Robert J Louie Memorial Fund · Salesforce 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 San Francisco Association of Realtors 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.
- Best Buddies International Inc — 4% 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.