Skip to content
Strongpoint Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Strongpoint 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.

$2.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$1.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Food & Nutrition$4.6MPhilanthropy$1.4MCrime & Legal$100kHealth$66kHousing & Shelter$45kYouth Development$6kCommunity Improvement$5kCivil Rights$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $2k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $260k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.8M
$15,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$220k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY$1,825,435
VANGUARD CHARITABLE$200,000
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND$60,000
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$15,000
CINNAMONGIRL$1,029
LUV MICHAEL INC$512
ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$150
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 (FY20–25, $46k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 1% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%LUV MICHAEL INC: $512 → 17%Sunnyvale Community Services: $15k → 8%Sunnyvale Community Services: $10k → 8%Sunnyvale Community Services: $10k → 8%Sunnyvale Community Services: $10k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.9M · 9 repeat orgs$15k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +57% since the first grant, against +51% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
4

Total granted

$4.9M
$14k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+57%
+51%

Still filing today

67%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEducationYouth DevelopmentFood & NutritionCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY
    6× · 2020–2025 · $4.6M · revenue +45%
  • UO
    University of Michigan
    5× · 2021–2025 · $66k · revenue +96%
  • IF
    INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
    2× · 2020–2021 · $60k · revenue +57%

Funded once

  • E
    EPACENTER
    one grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue 0%
  • GF
    GLIDE FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue +51%
  • ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK
    one grant, 2024 · $3k · revenue +8%
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
Golden Gate University

Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…

Education
2
Food Forward Inc

Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.

Food & Nutrition
3
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
4
Ucla Foundation

The ucla foundation is the giving, receiving, and investing arm of the ucla campus. the foundation enables private donors to help build, sustain and advance one of the world's finest academic and research institutions. private philanthropy…

Education
5
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
6
Association of California School Administrators

The association serves its members by creating resources that enable california school administrators to develop and apply creative leadership and management skills and in turn, improve the educational process for all students.

—
7
American Law Institute

The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…

Crime & Legal
8
University of Redlands

We welcome, educate, and empower a diverse community of learners for lives of meaning, impact, and joy.

Education
9
United Food Bank

United Food Bank unites communities to alleviate hunger.

Food & Nutrition
10
The Uc Davis Foundation

The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.

Education
11
Ucsf Foundation Investment Company

The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.

Education
12
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Epacenter; the most unlike its peers is Cinnamongirl 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

15 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. 15 of the 18 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)
15/15
Grantees still filing
11/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $4,600,259 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEYVANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROGRAM: $1,342,000 · PhilanthropyVANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDO…University of Michigan: $66,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $55,000 · OtherJDFR: $11,000 · OtherUnited States Healthful Food: $7,000 · OtherEPACENTER: $5,250 · Other+4 more: $8,650 · OtherFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $80,000 · Community ImprovementHISPANIC FOUNDATION OF SILICON VALLEY: $5,000 · Community ImprovementINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: $60,000 · Civil RightsSUNNYVALE COMMUNITY SERVICES: $45,000 · Human Services+1 more: $512 · Human ServicesFRESH LIFELINES FOR YOUTH INC: $40,000 · Youth Development+1 more: $1,029 · Youth Development
Food & Nutrition$4,600,259Philanthropy$1,342,000Other$152,900Community Improvement$85,000Civil Rights$60,000Human Services$45,512Youth Development$41,029

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 budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $4,600,259 over 6y, 0.6% of budgetVANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROGRAM: $1,342,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $80,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Michigan: $66,000 over 5y, 3.7% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: $60,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSUNNYVALE COMMUNITY SERVICES: $45,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetFRESH LIFELINES FOR YOUTH INC: $40,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetEPACENTER: $5,250 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGLIDE FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHISPANIC FOUNDATION OF SILICON VALLEY: $5,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetURBAN PRAIRIE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $150 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.

American Online Givin…American Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE9.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Strongpoint Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Strongpoint Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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
    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 18 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 Strongpoint’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