· Community foundation
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) connects people, ideas and resources to ensure equity and opportunity for all.
Read this first · the figures below need context
59% of Silicon Valley Community Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to National Philanthropic Trust, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 3440 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year Silicon Valley Community Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 3164 organizations, $4.9bn. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
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.
The 3,316 grants below total $4,882,562,863 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $5,081,247,110 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $198,684,247 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k213 grants · $1.5M
- $10k–50k1221 grants · $26M
- $50k–250k1054 grants · $115M
- $250k+828 grants · $4.7B
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Further Future Foundation | $1,309,000,000 |
| CZ Institute for Advanced Biological Imaging LLC | $586,007,469 |
| CZ Biohub SF LLC | $576,046,150 |
| CZ Biohub New York LLC | $248,000,000 |
| CZ Biohub Chicago LLC | $246,500,000 |
| Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund | $153,756,594 |
| The Just Trust for Education | $131,625,000 |
| Helen Keller International Inc | $67,455,086 |
| American Online Giving Foundation Inc | $38,105,841 |
| Philanthropic Ventures Foundation | $33,283,997 |
| Schwab Charitable Fund | $27,471,026 |
| City Fund | $26,733,812 |
| American Friends of The Tel Aviv University Inc | $21,000,000 |
| College Track | $19,714,200 |
| University of California Berkeley Foundation | $18,664,810 |
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, $239.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 76% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +56% since the first grant, against -26% for the ones you funded once.
1600 repeat relationships — 1096 still active in FY2023, 504 since wound down; 132 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $162M 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
- PIPARKER INSTITUTE FOR CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY6× · 2018–2024 · $405M · revenue +59% · 93% of their budget
- CFCENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE6× · 2019–2024 · $334M · revenue ×21 · 32% of their budget
- POPRESIDENT-BOARD OF TRUSTEES SANTA CLARA COLLEGE8× · 2017–2024 · $104M · revenue +39%
Funded once
PHILADELPHIA ORCHESTRA ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2019 · $55M · revenue -15% · 56% of their budget- FHFLYING HERITAGE & COMBAT ARMOR MUSEUMone grant, 2018 · $50M · revenue -100% · 79% of their budget
- PAPOWERHOUSE ARTS INCone grant, 2018 · $43M · revenue -28%
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 organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the UCSF Foundation.
The common application promotes access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process.
Deliver world-class resources and mentoring to enable every entrepreneur across the globe to realize their maximum potential.
Highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on u.s. foreign policy
Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.
Accion is a global nonprofit on a mission to create a fair and inclusive economy. we are a leading early-stage investor in fintech for inclusion and experts in the digital transformation of financial service providers, with decades of…
To advance professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power.
California changelawyers is a statewide foundation whose mission is to build a better justice system for all californians. changelawyers empowers the next generation of lawyers, judges, and activists to create a more diverse legal…
California Competes: Higher Education for a Strong Economy is a nonpartisan policy and research organization focused on identifying solutions to the states most critical challenges at the intersection of higher education, equity, and the…
Increase the scale and effectiveness of impact investing to solve systemic problems facing people and the planet.
The central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is transforming our regional economy, bringing together the ceos of central indiana's largest and most civically engaged employers and university presidents to advance "big picture"…
to work alongside communities to build power, challenge systems of injustice, protect health, and improve quality of life.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink and the most unlike its peers is The Stiff Person Syndrome Research. 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 24 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 10% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% 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.
1855 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. 1855 of the 2,000 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST ↗
- Who funds NAVIGATION CHARITABLE FUND ↗
- Who funds DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds PARKER INSTITUTE FOR CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE ↗
- Who funds EVIDENCE ACTION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds THE JUST TRUST FOR EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds First Look Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds CITY FUND ↗
- Who funds Greater Kansas City Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds PRESIDENT-BOARD OF TRUSTEES SANTA CLARA COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds The Chicago Community Trust ↗
- Who funds GRADIENT LEARNING ↗
- Who funds JASPER RIDGE CHARITABLE FUND ↗
- Who funds HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds COLLEGE TRACK ↗
- Who funds The Trustees of Princeton University ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds The Center for Election Innovation & Research ↗
- Who funds CHARTER FUND INC D/B/A CHARTER SCHOOL GROWTH FUND ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds EFFECTIVE VENTURES FOUNDATION USA INC ↗
- Who funds FWDUS EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ADVANCED EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FUND ↗
- Who funds GIVEDIRECTLY INC ↗
- Who funds PHILADELPHIA ORCHESTRA ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds SUMMIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ↗
- Who funds TEACH FOR ALL INC ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN LEADERSHIP 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 Palo Alto Community Fund · Atkinson Foundation · The Sobrato Family Foundation · Sand Hill Foundation · Valley Health Foundation (Vhf) · Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation · Destination Home SV co Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Rotary Club of San Jose Foundation · Embarcadero Media Foundation · Leo M Shortino Family Foundation · Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Foundation · The Applied Materials 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 Silicon Valley Community 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.
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- The Broad Institute Inc — 19% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Yale University — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Children's Hospital Corporation — 10% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Upstream Usa Inc — 4% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% 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.