Skip to content
Smart Foodservice Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

Smart Foodservice Charitable Foundation

The purpose of the foundation is to provide grants to organizations that are dedicated to general community charitable purposes, including food banks, youth sports organizations, programs for at-risk youth, health and nutrition programs, educational programs and institutions, community development activities, emergency and disaster…

$224k
Granted FY2020
13
Grants FY2020
3
States reached
$13k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2020.

Food & Nutrition$307kHuman Services$46kReligion$20kInternational$8k
02FY2020 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $103,111, the rows itemized in this filing. The $223,681 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $120,570 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k11 grants · $78k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $25k
$7,806
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
KLAMATH-LAKE COUNTIES FOOD BANK$12,981
OREGON FOOD BANK$12,463
NOURISH PIERCE COUNTY$9,596
THURSTON CO FOOD BANK$9,162
BREMERTON FOOD LINE$9,049
FOOD FOR LANE COUNTY$8,112
MARION-POLK FOOD SHARE$7,806
HOPELINK BELLEVUE$7,296
UNION GOSPEL MISSION$5,788
CEDARWOOD INTERNATIONAL$5,298
FEDERAL WAY MSC$5,216
SKAGIT VALLEY FOOD BANK NEIGHBORS IN NEED$5,181
IDAHO FOOD BANK$5,163
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 (FY17–20, $31k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%NEIGHBOR IMPACT: $6k → 10%HOPELINK BELLEVUE: $6k → 9%FEDERAL WAY MSC: $5k → 9%HOPELINK BELLEVUE: $7k → 9%HOPELINK BELLEVUE: $6k → 9%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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$306k · 15 repeat orgs$76k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2020, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
10

Total granted

$306k
$71k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+99%

Still filing today

87%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’20
Food & NutritionHuman ServicesPhilanthropyReligionOther
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

  • OREGON FOOD BANK
    3× · 2017–2020 · $59k · revenue +70%
  • KLAMATH LAKE COUNTIES FOOD BANK
    3× · 2017–2020 · $32k · revenue +49%
  • TC
    THURSTON COUNTY FOOD BANK
    3× · 2017–2020 · $26k · revenue +118%

Funded once

  • TS
    THE SALVATION ARMY
    one grant, 2017 · $15k
  • FF
    FOOD FOR LANE COUNTY
    one grant, 2017 · $8k
  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTYgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $7k · revenue +77%
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
Port Angeles Food Bank

Nourishing our community. the port angeles food bank is the main food bank in clallam county, providing food to 13 other area pantries and meal programs as well as providing food to over 5,000 individuals per month.

Food & Nutrition
2
Alameda Emergency Food Dba Alameda Food Bank

Founded in 1977, The Alameda Food Bank is a non-profit organization that helps Alameda residents in need by providing nourishing food in compassionate and respectful manner with the support of dedicated volunteers and local partners.

Food & Nutrition
3
The Food Bank for Larimer County

To provide food to all in need through community partnerships and hunger relief programs. Our vision is a hunger-free Larimer County.

Food & Nutrition
4
Food Bank of Eastern Michigan

The Food Bank of Eastern Michigan's mission is to be the Food Source for people in need. Partnering with organizations to feed the hungry, we advocate and build a community solution to a community problem. By leveraging an abundance of…

Food & Nutrition
5
Foodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc

To end hunger and transform the health of our community by providing nourishment to those in need by acquiring and distributing safe nutritious food via local agencies and by providing education to solve hunger and nutritional problems in…

Food & Nutrition
6
Feeding Washington

Create a strong and effective statewide infrastructure that efficiently leverages resources to expand capacity in Washington State's Feeding America network.

Food & Nutrition
7
Snoqualmie Valley Food Bank

Our mission is to provide food and key resources to help our neighbors and community thrive. we lead the effort to feed, educated and advocate ending hunger in the snoqualmie valley and beyond.

Food & Nutrition
8
The Maryland Food Bank Inc

The maryland food bank is a nonprofit hunger-relief organization dedicated to feeding people, strengthening communities, and ending hunger for more marylanders.

—
9
Yolo Food Bank

The mission of yolo food bank is to make yolo county a thriving community where everyone has the resources they need to experience health, prosperity, and a high quality of life. Yolo Food bank durably increases food and nutrition security…

Food & Nutrition
10
West Seattle Food Bank

West Seattle Food Bank strengthens the community through the power of neighbors helping neighbors, working to ensure all in our community have access to the essential necessities of living.

Food & Nutrition
11
Nooksack Valley Food Bank Association

Our mission is to provide a variety of food products to families and individuals who are in need. We are open one day a week.

Food & Nutrition
12
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley

To realize our vision of a hunger free community we will provide more food, healthy food and better access to food. we will leverage our own resources and also work with partners in the community.

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oregon Food Bank; the most unlike its peers is Multi-Service Center. 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

20 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. 20 of the 26 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
19/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OREGON FOOD BANK: $58,929 · OtherOREGON FOOD BANKKLAMATH LAKE COUNTIES FOOD BANK: $31,501 · OtherKLAMATH LAKE COUNTIES FOOD BANKBremerton Foodline: $24,409 · OtherBremerton FoodlineNourish Pierce County: $16,700 · OtherNourish Pierce CountyTHE SALVATION ARMY: $15,252 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYFOOD FOR LANE COUNTY: $14,977 · OtherFOOD FOR LANE COUNTYUNION GOSPEL MISSION ASSOCIATION OF SPOKANE: $12,836 · OtherUNION GOSPEL MISSION ASSOCIATION OF SPOKANEALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $11,860 · OtherALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANKSKAGIT VALLEY FOOD BANK NEIGHBORS IN NEED: $10,385 · OtherFOOD FOR LANE COUNTY: $8,010 · Other+3 more: $16,103 · Other+3 moreTHURSTON COUNTY FOOD BANK: $25,753 · Food & NutritionTHURSTON COUNTY FOOD BANKMARION-POLK FOOD SHARE INC: $21,727 · Food & NutritionMARION-POLK FOOD SHARE INCIDAHO FOODBANK WAREHOUSE: $20,460 · Food & NutritionIDAHO FOODBANK WAREHOUSEFOOD LIFELINE: $10,888 · Food & NutritionFOOD LIFELINESECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $6,883 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SAN…REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $6,421 · Food & NutritionREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANKAlternatives to Hunger Bellingham Food Bank: $5,220 · Food & NutritionAlternatives to Hunger Belli…HOPELINK: $19,195 · Human ServicesHOPELINKNEIGHBORIMPACT: $6,342 · Human ServicesNEIGHBORI…MULTI-SERVICE CENTER: $5,216 · Human ServicesMULTI-SER…AUBURN FOOD BANK: $10,646 · PhilanthropySECOND HARVEST OF THE GREATER VALLEY: $6,503 · PhilanthropyCITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $15,611 · Religion
Other$220,962Food & Nutrition$97,352Human Services$30,753Philanthropy$17,149Religion$15,611

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetOREGON FOOD BANK: $58,929 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetKLAMATH LAKE COUNTIES FOOD BANK: $31,501 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetTHURSTON COUNTY FOOD BANK: $25,753 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetBremerton Foodline: $24,409 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetMARION-POLK FOOD SHARE INC: $21,727 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetIDAHO FOODBANK WAREHOUSE: $20,460 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHOPELINK: $19,195 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNourish Pierce County: $16,700 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $15,611 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFOOD FOR LANE COUNTY: $14,977 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $11,860 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFOOD LIFELINE: $10,888 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAUBURN FOOD BANK: $10,646 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $6,883 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF THE GREATER VALLEY: $6,503 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $6,421 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEIGHBORIMPACT: $6,342 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYakima Rotary Food Bank: $5,430 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetAlternatives to Hunger Bellingham Food Bank: $5,220 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMULTI-SERVICE CENTER: $5,216 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

The Albertsons Compan…Northwest Harvest EmmEnterprise Holdings F…Food LifelineDutch Bros FoundationPuget Sound Energy Fo…Employees Community F…Give Back FoundationAmerican Endowment Fo…Seattle FoundationThe Blackbaud Giving …Harvest Against Hunger
The Albertsons Companies FoundationCA24.5× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Albertsons Companies Foundation · Northwest Harvest Emm · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Food Lifeline · Dutch Bros Foundation · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · Employees Community Fund of Boeing-Puget Sound · Give Back Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Seattle Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Harvest Against Hunger

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 21%
  • Neighborimpact: 68% of income from government
  • Oregon Food Bank: 21% of income from government
  • Marion-Polk Food Share Inc: 5% of income from government
  • Food for Lane County: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
14report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely 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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Smart Foodservice Charitable Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Smart Foodservice Charitable 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 26 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Smart Foodservice’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