· Public charity
Southern California Grantmakers
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRANTMAKERS (scg) is the regional association for philanthropists and grantmakers working to make a difference in our communities and around the world.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k8 grants · $62k
- $10k–50k91 grants · $2.4M
- $50k–250k34 grants · $3.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT (ANWOL) | $165,000 |
| TIMELIST GROUP INC | $140,000 |
| BLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS | $125,000 |
| COMMUNITY PARTNERSV | $124,500 |
| CONGREGATIONS ORGANIZED FOR PROPHETIC ENGAGEMENT (COPE) | $122,500 |
| ANTELOPE VALLEY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNCIL | $120,000 |
| SEED HOUSE PROJECT | $115,400 |
| ELITE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT INC | $110,000 |
| COMMUNITY NOW | $110,000 |
| SAN BERNARDINO FATHERHOOD | $110,000 |
| WATTS LABOR COMMUNITY ACTION COMMUNITY | $110,000 |
| DELTA RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION | $110,000 |
| MOMSHOUSE | $110,000 |
| INGLEWOOD WRAPPING ARMS AROUND THE COMMUNITY | $110,000 |
| TINY'S VILLAGE INC | $105,000 |
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 (FY21–24, $2.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, 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 +84% since the first grant, against +43% for the ones you funded once.
30 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 117 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, 16% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.6M 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
- CPCOMMUNITY PARTNERS3× · 2020–2024 · $378k · revenue +111%
- NCNEHEMIAH CHARITABLE FUND3× · 2022–2024 · $315k · revenue +190%
- TCThe Community Action League3× · 2022–2024 · $260k · revenue +84%
Funded once
- AAASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $350k · revenue +102%
- MMMALDEF - MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUNDone grant, 2020 · $315k · revenue -19%
- NENALEO EDUCATIONAL FUNDone grant, 2020 · $300k · revenue +13%
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.
Mental health services advocacy
The LCCL seeks to advance resource equity and the well-being of community through its mission to find, fund, form, and feature nonprofits in marginalized communities meeting the needs of individuals and families. As a community-facing…
Legal Link removes legal barriers that prolong poverty by adding critically needed capacity to the legal ecosystem.
Provider of human services
To promote health equity by advocating for public policies and sufficient resources to address the health needs of communities of color.
To improve personal and community health and wellness within the african community by increasing the availability of culturally relevant physical and mental health services.
The California Urban Partnership's (CUP) mission is to build economic security in communities of color through policy research, education and organizing community action. We advocate for systems changes that increase investments to improve…
Cultivating individual and collective well-being, shared accountability, and healing through community-driven research and evidence-based restorative processes.
ExpresArte Cultural Wellness Collective is dedicated to centering the voices of people of color, co-creating programs and experiences that infuse healing and hope into our organizing and advocacy spaces. We address the root causes of…
The California Center for Movement Legal Services (Movement Legal) provides legal services in the pursuit of improving the lives of California's traditionally underserved residents, carrying out legal work that fosters community led policy…
Mentorship and housing assistant for women returning from incarceration
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Confluence Rising and the most unlike its peers is Women Achieving Success. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 13 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 16% 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.
166 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. 166 of the 183 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 CALIFORNIA CALLS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds MALDEF - MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND ↗
- Who funds NEHEMIAH CHARITABLE FUND ↗
- Who funds NALEO EDUCATIONAL FUND ↗
- Who funds The Community Action League ↗
- Who funds CONGREGATIONS ORGANIZED FOR PROPHETIC ENGAGEMENT ↗
- Who funds EMPOWERTHEM COLLECTIVE ↗
- Who funds Community Health Action Network ↗
- Who funds THE THERAPEUTIC PLAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Empower You Edutainment ↗
- Who funds ORANGE COUNTY ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER ↗
- Who funds PSYCHES OF COLOR ↗
- Who funds A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Magdalenas Daughters ↗
- Who funds MIGHTY LITTLE GIANTS INC ↗
- Who funds CURLS COILS & CROWNS ↗
- Who funds PROJECT JOY ↗
- Who funds STEM TO THE FUTURE ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY REFLECTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds FRACTURED ATLAS INC ↗
- Who funds GROWURPOTENTIAL ↗
- Who funds GAILEN & CATHY REEVERS CENTER FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT INC ↗
- Who funds Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches ↗
- Who funds TIMELIST GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds Los Angeles Youth Network ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds EQUALITY ALLIANCE OF SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds BLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS ↗
- Who funds Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council ↗
- Who funds Seed House Project ↗
- Who funds INQUIRING SYSTEMS INC ↗
- Who funds Coleman Children and Youth Services dba Coleman Advocates for Children & Youth ↗
- Who funds BLACK ALLIANCE FOR JUST IMMIGRATION ↗
- Who funds DELTA RESEARCH & EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY NOW ↗
- Who funds INGLEWOOD WRAPPING ↗
- Who funds BLU Educational Foundation ↗
- Who funds WATTS LABOR COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE ↗
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: Weingart Foundation · Liberty Hill Foundation · California Community Foundation · The California Endowment · Inland Empire Community Foundation · The California Wellness Foundation · United Way Inc · The James Irvine Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Community Partners · The Annenberg Foundation · The Ahmanson 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 Southern California Grantmakers 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.
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.