Skip to content

· Private foundation

Spight Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$17k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$9k
Largest
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 2024.

Crime & Legal$39kFood & Nutrition$23kHuman Services$15kPhilanthropy$5kYouth Development$3kEnvironment$3kEducation$2kHousing & Shelter$1k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$188k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Public Lands Conservancy$9,000
Individual grant recipient$2,000
Stand Against Domestic Violence$2,000
Child Abuse Prevention Council$2,000
Aspiranet$2,000
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 (FY22–25, $9k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%Aspiranet: $3k → 7%Aspiranet: $3k → 7%ASPIRANET: $2k → 7%Aspiranet: $2k → 7%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.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$81k · 8 repeat orgs$21k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
7

Total granted

$81k
$12k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+68%

Still filing today

38%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 47% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationEnvironmentYouth DevelopmentCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesCivil RightsOther
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

  • A
    ASPIRANET
    4× · 2022–2025 · $9k · revenue +33%
  • CA
    CHILD ADVOCATES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
    2× · 2020–2021 · $8k · revenue +59%
  • BA
    BAY AREA CRISIS NURSERY
    3× · 2022–2024 · $7k · revenue +17%

Funded once

  • OI
    OCEANA INC
    one grant, 2019 · $3k · revenue -10%
  • BF
    BUILDING FUTURES INC
    one grant, 2019 · $3k
  • ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANKgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +87%
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
East Bay Agency for Children

For more than 70 years, East Bay Agency for Children continues to improve the well-being of children, youth and families by reducing the impact of trauma and social inequalities.

Health
2
Extrafood

Food Rescue - The Organization rescues excess fresh food from Bay Area businesses, schools and non-profits and immediately delivers the food to safety net partners - such as senior housing centers, after-school programs, and homeless…

Food & Nutrition
3
Community Action Marin

We make it possible for people in marin to achieve well-being by providing the vital services they need. together, we break down the barriers that get in the way of fair and lasting change in service to better outcomes for all.

Human Services
4
San Francisco Casa

San Francisco CASA transforms the lives of children and youth traumatized and displaced in the foster care and related systems by providing one consistent, caring volunteer advocate, trained to address each childs needs in the court and…

Civil Rights
5
Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano

The food bank of contra costa and solano (food bank) was incorporated on july 28, 1975. the food bank was established in order to efficiently gather, warehouse, and distribute food products to contra costa county charities meeting…

Food & Nutrition
6
Sacramento Children's Home

At the sacramento children's home, we are committed to opening doors to the future by maximizing the potential of children and families.

Human Services
7
Enterprise for Youth

Enterprise for youth empowers under-resourced san francisco youths to reach their potential through transformative paid internship experiences supported by a community of employers, caring adults, and peers.

Youth Development
8
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
9
Faces Sf

Our mission is to nurture, teach and empower children and families to transform their lives by providing critical assistance to low-income families with early childhood development, workforce training, school-age enrichment, and family…

Education
10
Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County

The child abuse prevention council (capc) strives to promote the safety of children and prevent child abuse by raising community awareness, educating our community and providing resources and support to families.

Community Improvement
11
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
12
Sacramento Food Bank & Family Services

Dedicated to assisting those in need by alleviating their immediate pain and problems and moving them toward self-sufficiency and financial independence.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Valley Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Building Futures Inc. 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

11 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. 11 of the 17 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Stand Against Domestic Violence: $21,400 · OtherStand Against Domestic ViolenceIndividual grant recipient: $13,750 · OtherIndividual grant recipientChild Abuse Prevention Council: $11,400 · OtherChild Abuse Prevention CouncilPUBLIC LANDS CONSERVANCY: $9,000 · OtherPUBLIC LANDS CONSERVANCYFOOD BANK OF CONTRA & SOLANO: $8,000 · OtherFOOD BANK OF CONTRA & SOLANOBAY AREA CRISIS NURSERY: $7,400 · OtherBAY AREA CRISIS NURSERY+5 more: $6,800 · Other+5 moreASPIRANET: $9,400 · Human ServicesASPIRANETCHILD ADVOCATES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: $8,050 · Civil RightsNORTH VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $5,000 · PhilanthropyOCEANA INC: $3,000 · EnvironmentBUILDING FUTURES INC: $2,500 · Youth DevelopmentImpact Bay Area: $2,000 · Education
Other$77,750Human Services$9,400Civil Rights$8,050Philanthropy$5,000Environment$3,000Youth Development$2,500Education$2,000

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 budgetASPIRANET: $9,400 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCHILD ADVOCATES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: $8,050 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetBAY AREA CRISIS NURSERY: $7,400 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetOCEANA INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetImpact Bay Area: $2,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetRUBY'S PLACE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBUSINESSES UNITED IN INVESTING LENDING & DEVELOPMENT: $750 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.

  • Who funds ASPIRANET ↗
  • Who funds CHILD ADVOCATES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds BAY AREA CRISIS NURSERY ↗
  • Who funds NORTH VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OCEANA INC ↗
  • Who funds BUILDING FUTURES INC ↗
  • Who funds ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds Impact Bay Area ↗
  • Who funds RUBY'S PLACE INC ↗
  • Who funds SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds BUSINESSES UNITED IN INVESTING LENDING & DEVELOPMENT ↗

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.

Lowell Berry FoundationCA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Lowell Berry Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Spight Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Spight 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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.

    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 17 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 Spight’s filings →

    More from the funding graph