· Private foundation
The Applied Materials Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
Read this first · the figures below need context
78% of The Applied Materials Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Silicon Valley Community Foundation, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
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
- $50k–250k10 grants · $1.6M
- $250k+10 grants · $12M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY | $2,500,000 |
| THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND | $1,706,970 |
| SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $1,544,107 |
| SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $1,466,500 |
| SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $1,400,000 |
| SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $733,500 |
| THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND | $716,425 |
| SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $700,000 |
| THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND | $501,977 |
| CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK INC | $500,000 |
| THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND | $247,082 |
| SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $203,000 |
| THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND | $194,706 |
| THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND | $191,220 |
| THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND | $157,994 |
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 (FY17–22, $3.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 21% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 38% of The Applied Materials Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +40% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
273 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 271 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- SHSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY7× · 2017–2025 · $5.8M · revenue +138%
- SCSUNNYVALE COMMUNITY SERVICES6× · 2017–2022 · $1.3M · revenue +128%
Central Texas Food Bank Inc7× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +12%
Funded once
- NTNEW TEACHER CENTERone grant, 2017 · $131k · revenue -51%
- TITRUECHILD INCone grant, 2018 · $105k · revenue -98%
- AAASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - AAJC INCone grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue -68%
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.
See schedule okqed serves the people of northern california with a community-supported alternative to commercial media, providing the knowledge needed to make informed decisions; convening community dialogue; bringing the arts to everyone;…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
To promote philanthropy to make santa cruz county a better place to live, now and in the future.we bring together people, ideas, and resources to inspire philanthropy and accomplish great things.
The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…
Epacenter's mission is to increase opportunities for youth to discover and amplify their talents, realize their potential, and impact the world through art, design, and technology.
To lead, serve and collaborate to mobilize enduring philanthropy for a better arizona.
Ca fwd drives action to identify solutions that can be taken to scale to meet the challenges the state is facing. the organization is driven by the belief that regional solutions across the state will help ensure economic, environmental,…
Silicon Valley Social Venture Funds (SV2) mission is to unleash the talents and resources of the Bay Area community to achieve meaningful social impact. SV2 works to build the organizational capacity of our Nonprofit Grantees and Impact…
Independent nonpartisan newsroom serving Santa Cruz County, California we are all watching and engaged in our local government, our needs are addressed, democracy works better and our community is stronger.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Ai4all's mission is to ensure that the next generation of ai leaders reflects humanity. ai4all is transforming the pipeline of ai practitioners who will shape ai for the benefit of humanity.
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,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Guild for Community Arts Education Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Foundation At Shield Ranch. 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 33 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
381 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. 381 of the 449 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY WORLDWIDE ↗
- Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds SUNNYVALE COMMUNITY SERVICES ↗
- Who funds Central Texas Food Bank Inc ↗
- Who funds SILICON VALLEY CREATES ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF OFANIM INC ↗
- Who funds BREAKTHROUGH SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds CITY YEAR INC ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN SCHOOL INNOVATION ↗
- Who funds Teach for America Inc ↗
- Who funds ACE CHARTER SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds BREAKTHROUGH ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN ↗
- Who funds Alliance for Girls ↗
- Who funds Techbridge Girls ↗
- Who funds AUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SILICON VALLEY EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SPRINGBOARD COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds GENAUSTIN ↗
- Who funds GIVE2ASIA ↗
- Who funds SACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE ↗
- Who funds SCHOOL OF ARTS AND CULTURE AT MHP ↗
- Who funds FLATHEAD FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds CARITAS OF AUSTIN ↗
- Who funds SILICON VALLEY CAMPAIGN FOR LEGAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds SAN JOSE MUSEUM OF ART ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds OPERA SAN JOSE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds SYMPHONY SAN JOSE ↗
- Who funds People Acting in Community Together ↗
- Who funds Cinequest Inc ↗
- Who funds Foundation for Inspiration & Recognition of Scienc ↗
- Who funds National Alliance for Partnerships In Equity Education Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds GIRLSTART ↗
- Who funds E3 ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds THE OPEN DOOR CAPE ANN FOOD PANTRY INC ↗
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: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Leo M Shortino Family Foundation · Austin Community Foundation Inc · St David's Foundation · Silicon Valley Creates · Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation · United Way for Greater Austin · The Sobrato Family Foundation · The Webber Family Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Better Business Bureau · Rotary Club of San Jose Foundation
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 Applied Materials 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.
- Pathways for Childreninc — 86% of income from government
- Adelante Mujeres — 31% of income from government
- Young Audiences of Oregon Inc — 23% of income from government
- United Way of Massachusetts Bay Inc — 23% of income from government
- Oregon Food Bank — 21% of income from government
- New Avenues for Youth Inc — 20% of income from government
- Gloucester Marine Genomics Institute Incorporated — 16% of income from government
- City Year Inc — 11% of income from government
- Leap for Education Inc — 9% of income from government
- Wellspring House Inc — 9% of income from government
- Ymca of the North Shore Inc — 6% of income from government
- Cape Ann Plein Air Inc — 4% of income from government
- Oregon Museum of Science and Industry — 4% of income from government
- Cape Ann Symphony Orchestra Inc — 4% of income from government
- Girls Inc of the Pacific Northwest — 4% of income from government
- Peabody Essex Museum Inc — 3% of income from government
- Action Inc — 3% of income from government
- Cape Ann Art Haven Inc — 1% 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 Applied Materials Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Applied Materials 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.