Skip to content

· Private foundation

Schiller 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.

$1.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$1.1M
Largest
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Education$1.1MHuman Services$67kFood & Nutrition$53kCommunity Improvement$50kYouth Development$40kReligion$38kHealth$20kPublic Safety & Disaster$11kOther$0
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k13 grants · $65k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $32k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.1M
$6,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$346k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Lake Tahoe Community College EconomicBusiness Scholarships$1,050,000
Phoenix Food Pantry$12,000
Hope Medical Clinic$10,000
Sonoma Valley Mentoring Alliance$10,000
Austin Kirby Foundation$8,000
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP)$8,000
Manhattan Beach Education Foundation$7,000
Friends in Service Here (FISH)$6,000
Individual grant recipient$6,000
Tahoe Valley Elementary School$5,000
Christmas Cheer$5,000
Family Tree$5,000
St Theresa's Church$4,000
Live Violence Free$3,000
Family Support Council$3,000
02The need
03

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 (FY21–25, $55k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 68% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%American Red Cross: $11k → 8%Family Tree: $10k → 7%Austin Kirby Foundation: $8k → 8%Family Tree: $5k → 7%Austin Kirby Foundation: $5k → 8%Family Tree: $3k → 7%Austin Kirby Foundation: $2k → 8%Austin's House: $2k → 8%Austin's House: $2k → 8%Live Violence Free: $3k → 8%Live Violence Free: $3k → 8%Live Violence Free: $1k → 8%0%20%40%50%more need →
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.
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.

16%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$214k · 21 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

21 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
11

Total granted

$214k
$92k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+25%

Still filing today

43%
55%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 7% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEducationFood & NutritionInternationalHealthOther
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

  • SV
    Sonoma Valley Mentoring Alliance
    2× · 2024–2025 · $18k · revenue +110%
  • FT
    FAMILY TREE INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $18k · revenue +4%
  • MB
    MANHATTAN BEACH EDUCATION FOUNDATION
    3× · 2023–2025 · $17k · revenue +9%

Funded once

  • LT
    Lake Tahoe Community College EconomicBusiness Scholarhsips
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
  • SA
    ST ANTHONY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $11k
  • AN
    American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches
    one grant, 2023 · $11k · revenue +22%
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.

1
Tu Casa Incorporated

To support healthy violence-free lives and relationships for all children and adults in the San Luis Valley by providing crisis intervention services advocacy and counseling for victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

—
2
Carson Valley Community Food Closet Inc

The organizations mission is to alleviate food insecurity by providing supplemental food assistance to individuals and families in need. The organization receives monetary contributions used to purchase food and accepts donated food from…

Food & Nutrition
3
Interfaith Food Ministry Nevada County

A community where no one should feel the hurt of hunger. Interfaith Food Ministry feeds the hungry and works to reduce food insecurity in Nevada County. We help to sustain health, human dignity and the opportunity for individuals to…

Food & Nutrition
4
Central California Family Crisis Center

The Organization provides shelter, meals, clothing and counseling for victims of domestic violence, housing crisis, and/or poverty.

Human Services
5
Utah Valley Family Support Center Inc

Provide services to victims and potential victims of child abuse and neglect.

—
6
The Center for Women and Children in Crisis

Provide a caring, advocating, safe, and educationally based environment for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Health
7
Nevada Casa Association Inc

The organization supports Nevada local CASA programs which recruit, train, retain and deploy volunteers to advocate for abused or neglected children.

Youth Development
8
Debourahs House

Food pantry distribution program provided supportive services to more than 35,000 food insecure individuals and families in Clark County Nevada. Families served 23,839 and individuals 11.161 in the state of Nevada.

Food & Nutrition
9
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Western Washington & Alaska

Ronald McDonald House Charities of Western Washington & Alaska supports families with seriously ill children by providing a caring home-away-from-home at the SEattle Ronald McDonald House and operating a house and a van service in…

Health
10
Sonoma Applied Village Services

Address the homeless crisis in California.

Housing & Shelter
11
La Casa de las Madres

La Casa de las Madres' mission is to respond to calls for help from DV victims, of all ages, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We give survivors the tools to transform their lives. We seek to prevent future violence by educating the…

—
12
Casa El Dorado

CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates)El Dorado provides advocacy services to abused and neglected children in the Child Welfare System in El Dorado County, California.

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Vista Rise Collective; the most unlike its peers is Austin Kirby 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

17 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. 17 of the 36 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/17
Grantees still filing
9/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Lake Tahoe Community College EconomicBusiness Scholarships: $1,050,000 · OtherLake Tahoe Community College EconomicBusiness ScholarshipsLake Tahoe Community College EconomicBusiness Scholarhsips: $50,000 · Other+21 more: $149,963 · Other+21 moreFAMILY TREE INC: $17,500 · Human ServicesAustin Kirby Foundation: $15,000 · Human ServicesAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $11,000 · Human ServicesVISTA RISE COLLECTIVE: $7,000 · Human ServicesAustin's House: $4,000 · Human ServicesCasa De Paz: $2,000 · Human ServicesSonoma Valley Mentoring Alliance: $18,000 · EducationMANHATTAN BEACH EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $17,000 · EducationTAHOE MAGIC INC: $2,000 · EducationCHRISTMAS CHEER INC: $18,000 · Food & NutritionFood Bank of Northern Nevada Inc: $5,000 · Food & NutritionINTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DEMOCRACY CENTER: $5,000 · InternationalBarton Memorial Hospital Foundation: $4,500 · Health
Other$1,249,963Human Services$56,500Education$37,000Food & Nutrition$23,000International$5,000Health$4,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSonoma Valley Mentoring Alliance: $18,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetCHRISTMAS CHEER INC: $18,000 over 5y, 18% of budgetFAMILY TREE INC: $17,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMANHATTAN BEACH EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $17,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHOPE MEDICAL CLINIC INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $11,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVISTA RISE COLLECTIVE: $7,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetFood Bank of Northern Nevada Inc: $5,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DEMOCRACY CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 9.6% of budgetBarton Memorial Hospital Foundation: $4,500 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetAustin's House: $4,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCHRISTIAN SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF ANN ARBOR: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCasa De Paz: $2,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTAHOE MAGIC INC: $2,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budget
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.

  • Who funds Sonoma Valley Mentoring Alliance ↗
  • Who funds CHRISTMAS CHEER INC ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY TREE INC ↗
  • Who funds MANHATTAN BEACH EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Austin Kirby Foundation ↗
  • Who funds HOPE MEDICAL CLINIC INC ↗
  • Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
  • Who funds GREATER RICHMOND INTERFAITH PROGRAM GRIP ↗
  • Who funds VISTA RISE COLLECTIVE ↗
  • Who funds Food Bank of Northern Nevada Inc ↗
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DEMOCRACY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Barton Memorial Hospital Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Austin's House ↗
  • Who funds CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF ANN ARBOR ↗
  • Who funds Casa De Paz ↗
  • Who funds TAHOE MAGIC INC ↗
  • Who funds South Tahoe National Little League INC ↗

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.

Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA9.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Schiller Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Schiller Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Schiller Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Schiller 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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 36 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Schiller’s filings →

    More from the funding graph