Skip to content
Surfing for Hope Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Private foundation

Surfing for Hope Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$13k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$13k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Health$244kHuman Services$12kArts & Culture$12kRecreation & Sports$7kScience & Tech$1kEnvironment$1kInternational$500
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $100
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
$12,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$139k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HEARST CANCER RESOURCE CENTER OF FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER$12,500
CAMBRIA COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC$100
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 (FY18–23, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CAMP KESEM: $1k → 14%CAMP KESEM: $1k → 14%CAMP KESEM: $1k → 14%CAMP KESEM: $1k → 14%CAMP KESEM: $273 → 14%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$271k · 12 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +2% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
7

Total granted

$271k
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+2%
0%

Still filing today

50%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100 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
HealthHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsCommunity ImprovementScience & TechInternationalOther
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

  • CS
    CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - CALIFORNIA CENTRAL COAST
    4× · 2017–2022 · $18k · revenue +25%
  • 1S
    17 STRONG
    5× · 2017–2022 · $14k · revenue +600%
  • SL
    SAN LUIS OBISPO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL INC
    2× · 2019–2020 · $12k · revenue +168%

Funded once

  • JH
    JACKS HELPING HAND INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +130%
  • D
    DREAMMAKERS
    one grant, 2018 · $1k · revenue -101%
  • VC
    VALLEY CHILDREN'S HOSPITALgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $1k · revenue +43%
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
Surfing for Hope Foundation
Human Services
2
Coast Film Foundation

The organizations purpose is to produce the annual Coast Film and Music Festival, community screenings, and education programs that harness the power of film, music, and ideas to inspire a more thoughtful and engaged world.

Arts & Culture
3
Surf Lifesavings del Sur

Dedicated to the future of professional lifesaving in Mexico.

Public Safety & Disaster
4
Santa Barbara Outrigger Canoe Club

The purpose and goals of Santa Barbara Outrigger Canoe Club (SBOCC) are to foster national and international outrigger canoe competition and to generate public interest and support for these activities. SBOCC is dedicated to providing its…

Education
5
Sunshine Dreams Foundation

Sunshine Dreams Foundation is organized exclusively for charitable purposes, more specifically to raise funds for Camp Sunshine Dreams. This camp is for oncology patients and their siblings in ages from 8 to 15 and serves the Central…

Philanthropy
6
Going Coconuts for a Cure Inc

The organization's objective is to raise funds through various fundraisers to help local organizations and individuals in the community battling cancer.

Health
7
Santa Cruz Sailing Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Surfing Madonna Oceans Project
Arts & Culture
9
California Cricket Foundation
Recreation & Sports
10
Central Coast Surf Soccer Club

Youth recreation youth participation in soccer competitions with teams of youth players.

Recreation & Sports
11
San Dieguito Surf Soccer Club

The mission of San Dieguito Surf Soccer is to provide equitable access to high-quality soccer programs that promote athletic development, personal growth, and community engagement. As a nonprofit organization, we are committed to removing…

—
12
Save Oceanside Sand

Save Oceanside Sand is a group of local activists dedicated to restoring and preserving the beaches of Oceanside, California. Working with local, regional, state, and federal authorities, our mission is to protect this vital resource by…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cancer Support Community - California Central Coast; the most unlike its peers is Dreammakers. 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

13 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. 13 of the 20 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)
12/13
Grantees still filing
6/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HEARST CANCER RESOURCE CENTER: $127,200 · OtherHEARST CANCER RESOURCE CENTERHEARST CANCER RESOURCE CENTER OF FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $66,200 · OtherHEARST CANCER RESOURCE CENTER OF FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTERSAN LUIS OBISPO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL INC: $11,624 · OtherMISSION HOPE CANCER CENTER: $10,000 · Other+6 more: $12,619 · Other+6 moreCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - CALIFORNIA CENTRAL COAST: $18,000 · HealthCANCER SUPPOR…17 STRONG: $14,284 · Health17 STRONG+1 more: $1,000 · HealthCamp Kesem National: $4,816 · Human ServicesJACKS HELPING HAND INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WOMENADE: $5,000 · Community ImprovementCentral Coast Dragon Boat Assn: $2,000 · Recreation & SportsDREAMMAKERS: $1,000 · Science & TechCORAZON LATINO INC: $1,000 · Public Safety & DisasterSURF FOR LIFE: $500 · International
Other$227,643Health$33,284Human Services$6,816Community Improvement$5,000Recreation & Sports$2,000Science & Tech$1,000Public Safety & Disaster$1,000International$500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - CALIFORNIA CENTRAL COAST: $18,000 over 4y, 2.7% of budget17 STRONG: $14,284 over 5y, 7.3% of budgetSAN LUIS OBISPO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL INC: $11,624 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WOMENADE: $5,000 over 2y, 7.9% of budgetCamp Kesem National: $4,816 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetSURFERS OF TOMORROW: $4,000 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetCentral Coast Dragon Boat Assn: $2,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetJACKS HELPING HAND INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetVALLEY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCORAZON LATINO INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSURF FOR LIFE: $500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCAMBRIA COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC: $100 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 Community Foundat…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Community Foundation San Luis ObispoCA13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Community Foundation San Luis Obispo · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Surfing for Hope Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Surfing for Hope 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report 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 20 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 Surfing for Hope’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