How much did THE ALBERT & JUDITH GOLDBERG FOUNDATION grant in FY2023?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 65% of THE ALBERT & JUDITH GOLDBERG FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

brooklyn

2020

democracy

2021

justiceaccessreproductivedemocracyabortion

2022

justicedemocracyaccessreproductive

2023

access

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2023 · 53 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2023

Under $10k51 grants · $70k
$10k–50k2 grants · $65k

$1,000

Median grant

States reached

$2.5M

Total assets

Largest grants

JEWISH FILM INSTITUTE$42,500
SAN FRANCISCO CENTER FOR PSYCHOANALYSIS$22,500
TRI COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY$7,000
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS$5,000
WILLISTON NORTHAMPTON SCHOOL$5,000
LEVI'S JCC$2,500
SF MARIN FOOD BANK$2,500
AT THE WELL$2,500
ZEALOUS A PROJECT OF TIDES ADVOCACY$2,500
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AMERICA$2,500
PLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTHERN CALIFORNIA$2,500
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS HILLEL$2,000
HILLEL$2,000
TRUSTBRIDGE HOSPICE FOUNDATION$2,000
ST JUDE'S CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL$2,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY18–23, $37k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$684k · 80 repeat orgs$38k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +45% since the first grant, against +38% for the ones you funded once.

80 repeat relationships — 45 still active in FY2023, 35 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$684k

$24k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%

+38%

Still filing today

36%

33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $14k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

InternationalCivil RightsArts & CultureHuman ServicesEducationCrime & LegalOther

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

SF
SAN FRANCISCO CENTER FOR PSYCHOANALYSIS
6× · 2018–2023 · $126k · revenue +2%
CC
CHILDREN'S COUNCIL OF SAN FRANCISCO
6× · 2018–2023 · $35k · revenue +147%
WN
WILLISTON NORTHAMPTON SCHOOL
6× · 2018–2023 · $20k · revenue +34%

Funded once

CL
CAMPAGIN LEGAL CENTER
one grant, 2022 · $3k
SF
SUNDIAL FILM INITIATIVE
one grant, 2018 · $3k
SU
STATES UNITED
one grant, 2022 · $3k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment

Equal Justice Center

The Equal Justice Center is a non-profit law firm and employment justice organization which empowers low-income families, workers, and communities to achieve fair treatment in the workplace, in the justice system, and in our shared society…

Civil Rights

San Francisco Jewish Community

Js mission is to connect, enlighten and strengthen the multi-faceted Jewish community of Northern California and to serve as a forum for communicating news, information, ideas and opinions affecting Jews locally, (Continued top of page 2)

Education

National Council of Jewish Women

Inspired by jewish values, the national council of jewish women is a grassroots organization of volunteers and advocates who strive for social justice by improving the quality of life for women, children, and families, and by safeguarding…

Community Improvement

Center for Domestic Peace

Center for Domestic Peace mobilizes individuals and communities to transform our world so domestic violence no longer exists, creating greater safety, justice, and equality.

Human Services

Fund for Justice

Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…

Crime & Legal

Equal Justice Society

The Equal Justice Society is transforming the nation's consciousness on race through law, social science, and the arts.

Civil Rights

Jewish Family Service

Inspired by our history and values, Jewish Family Service supports the needs of Jewish individuals and families, refugees and immigrants, and our broader community to achieve well-being, health, and stability

Human Services

Justice Action Center

Justice Action Center JAC pilots an innovative model that advances the rights of immigrant communities by connecting cutting-edge impact litigation and compelling narrative and communications content. The purpose of JAC is to advance the…

Civil Rights

San Francisco Film Society

San Francisco Film Society (SFFILM) is a nonprofit organization whose mission ensures independent voices in film are welcomed, heard, and given the resources to thrive. SFFILM connects and inspires audiences, students and teachers, and…

—

Women's Foundation of California

Women's foundation of california amplifies the voices and experiences of community leaders, redistributes knowledge, power, and resources, and mobilizes communities and funders to advance justice for all.

—

California Changelawyers

California changelawyers is a statewide foundation whose mission is to build a better justice system for all californians. changelawyers empowers the next generation of lawyers, judges, and activists to create a more diverse legal…

Social Science

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Jewish World Service Inc and the most unlike its peers is Tri-County Humane Society. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 47 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/41

the rest of the field

12%

22,290/186,937

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.

05the grantee network

40 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

40/40

Grantees still filing

29/40

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$479,247Arts & Culture$135,617Human Services$37,000Civil Rights$23,750Education$21,550International$16,800Animals$8,000

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.

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.

The San Francisco FoundationCA26.3× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The San Francisco Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San · Marin Community Foundation · Ralph & Marsha Guggenheim Family · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Bny Mellon Charitable Gift Fund · Koret Foundation · Hopewell Fund · The Laszlo N Tauber Family · John Pritzker Family Fund · Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family Foundation · Lisa & Douglas Goldman Fund

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 organisation THE ALBERT & JUDITH GOLDBERG FOUNDATION 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

5get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: SAN FRANCISCO CENTER FOR PSYCHOANALYSIS.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

high risk

~1 months of operating runway; revenue held over 6 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

6 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 941546088 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on SAN FRANCISCO CENTER FOR PSYCHOANALYSIS, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 1 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue held over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 3% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to The Albert & Judith Goldberg Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Albert & Judith Goldberg Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

THE ALBERT & JUDITH GOLDBERG FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

40 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Albert & Judith Goldberg Foundation?

More from the funding graph

THE ALBERT & JUDITH GOLDBERG FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

40 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Albert & Judith Goldberg Foundation?

More from the funding graph