· Private foundation
The Albert & Judith Goldberg 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k54 grants · $87k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $43k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SAN FRANCISCO CENTER FOR PSYCHOANALYSIS | $17,500 |
| JEWISH FILM INSTITUTE | $15,000 |
| HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE SOCIETY OF AMERICA | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $7,000 |
| AT THE WELL | $5,000 |
| CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS | $5,000 |
| WILLISTON NORTHAMPTON SCHOOL | $5,000 |
| NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION | $5,000 |
| TRI COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY | $4,000 |
| METROPOLITAN OPERA | $4,000 |
| SAN FRANCISCO OPERA | $3,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTHERN CALIFORNIA | $2,500 |
| SF MARIN FOOD BANK | $2,500 |
| NEW ISRAEL FUND | $2,500 |
| AURORA THEATRE | $2,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $51k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +30% since the first grant, against +18% for the ones you funded once.
87 repeat relationships — 46 still active in FY2025, 41 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k 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
- SFSan Francisco Center for Psychoanal9× · 2017–2025 · $166k · revenue +8%
- CCChildren's Council of San Francisco9× · 2017–2025 · $41k · revenue +148%
- TWTHE WILLISTON NORTHAMPTON SCHOOL8× · 2018–2025 · $30k · revenue +30%
Funded once
- MGMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATEDone grant, 2017 · $20k
- TETEMPLE EMANU-ELone grant, 2017 · $3k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $3k
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.
San Diego Jewish Academy empowers each student to learn for life, guided by Jewish values and rooted in strength of community.
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,…
Biu produces students who excel in the sciences, humanities, law, engineering, business & the arts.
The mission of the jewish museum is to collect, preserve, exhibit and interpret art and jewish culture. see schedule o for more information.
The bar association of san francisco champions equal access to justice and promotes humanity, excellence, and diversity in the legal profession. we provide legal services to disadvantaged and underserved individuals in san francisco. we…
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.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
Chartered by a unanimous act of congress, the museum is america's national institution for the documentation, study, interpretation, and education of holocaust history and serves as our country's memorial to the victims of the holocaust.…
AJC's mission is to enhance the wellbeing of the Jewish people and Israel, and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United States and around the world. In pursuit of this mission, AJC advances democratic principles, fights…
The foundation operates exclusively for charitable, educational or religious purposes by conducting or supporting activities for the benefit of, or to carry out the purposes of the jewish community federation of san francisco, the…
We steward $1.5 billion in charitable assets through donor-advised funds, endowments, and other giving vehicles. partnering with 1,400 individuals, families, and organizations, we build enduring legacies and multigenerational impact. in…
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma and the most unlike its peers is The Goldin Institute. 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.
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 37 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.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
78 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. 78 of the 140 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 San Francisco Center for Psychoanal ↗
- Who funds Jewish Film Institute ↗
- Who funds Children's Council of San Francisco ↗
- Who funds THE WILLISTON NORTHAMPTON SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds JOE DIMAGGIO CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds TRI-COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds JEWISH COMMUNITY FEDERATION OF SAN FRANCISCO THE PENINSULA MARIN & SONOMA ↗
- Who funds HILLEL ADVISORY COUNCIL OF GREATER LONG BEACH AND WEST ORANGE COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds WEST EDGE OPERA ↗
- Who funds NEW ISRAEL FUND ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO OPERA ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ADOLPH & ROSE LEVIS JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds MOISHE HOUSE ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds Access Institute for Psychological Services ↗
- Who funds Repro TLC ↗
- Who funds HILLEL HOUSE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MASS AT AMHERST ↗
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: Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · The San Francisco Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Horizons Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · Ralph & Marsha Guggenheim Family Foundation · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · Koret Foundation · The Laszlo N Tauber Family Foundation Inc · Phyllis C Wattis Foundation · John Pritzker Family 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 organization 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Jewish Vocational Service Inc — 39% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Children's Hospital Corporation — 10% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Baystate Health Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Albert & Judith Goldberg Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Albert & Judith Goldberg Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.