Skip to content
The Barella Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Barella Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$639k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$157k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Education$249kHealth$200kYouth Development$157kReligion$157kHuman Services$25kAnimals$2kFood & Nutrition$2kPhilanthropy$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $628k
$157,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SONOMA-MARIN$157,000
ST VINCENT DE PAUL CHURCH$157,000
PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$157,000
PETALUMA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION$157,000
PETALUMA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION$10,827
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 (FY19–19, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%NORTH BAY CHILDREN'S CENTER: $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.

56%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$444k · 3 repeat orgs$349k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +49% since the first grant, against +29% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
6

Total granted

$444k
$35k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
+29%

Still filing today

67%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 51% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $314k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’23’24
EducationHuman ServicesAnimalsHealthOther
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

  • PE
    PETALUMA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
    4× · 2019–2024 · $244k · revenue +49%
  • PV
    PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION
    3× · 2021–2024 · $185k
  • AC
    A CHRISTMAS FOR KIDS
    3× · 2019–2021 · $15k · revenue -100%

Funded once

  • ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $15k · revenue +29%
  • NB
    NORTH BAY CHILDRENS CENTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +185%
  • SR
    Sebastopol Rotary Education Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue +230%
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
Sonoma Botanical Garden
—
2
San Francisco Family Foundation
—
3
Boys and Girls Clubs of Silicon Valley

To inspire and empower all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring adults.

Youth Development
4
Sierra Harvest

Founded in 2007, sierra harvest is building a community that values and eats an abundance of fresh, local, seasonal food; training successful local farmers that are increasing sustainable food production; and creating equitable access to…

Food & Nutrition
5
Children's Book Project

Organization mission: the mission of the san francisco-based children's book project (the "project") is to promote literacy by providing (1) free books to children who need them for equity in literacy, learning, and life, and (2) free…

Human Services
6
San Diego County Citizens' Scholars Foundation
—
7
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation

Mission statement: mission: caring for our patients first and our people always. vision: to be the most comprehensive, integrated and connected health system for getting and staying well. values: excellence - we deliver high-quality,…

Health
8
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley

To realize our vision of a hunger free community we will provide more food, healthy food and better access to food. we will leverage our own resources and also work with partners in the community.

Food & Nutrition
9
The San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

To ensure every companion animal has access to quality medical care, compassionate shelter, and a loving home.

Animals
10
Solana Beach Schools Foundation

To nurture curious minds, build community, and ensure every students enriched learning journey by providing essential funding.

—
11
Cabrillo Education Foundation

Cef is serving as a student success innovation fund to promote new, creative and powerful initiatives to improve students' education in our community. it is an advocate for and funds high leverage programs that have well defined outcomes…

—
12
Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano

The food bank of contra costa and solano (food bank) was incorporated on july 28, 1975. the food bank was established in order to efficiently gather, warehouse, and distribute food products to contra costa county charities meeting…

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Bay Childrens Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Desert Community Foundation. 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

9 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. 9 of the 12 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $185,000 · OtherPETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONST VINCENT DE PAUL CHURCH: $157,000 · OtherST VINCENT DE PAUL CHURCHBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SONOMA-MARIN: $157,000 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SONOMA-MARIN+3 more: $18,000 · OtherPETALUMA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $243,827 · EducationPETALUMA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION+1 more: $5,000 · EducationST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $15,000 · HealthNORTH BAY CHILDRENS CENTER INC: $10,000 · Human ServicesHUMANE SOCIETY OF SONOMA COUNTY: $2,000 · AnimalsDESERT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $2,000 · Philanthropy
Other$517,000Education$248,827Health$15,000Human Services$10,000Animals$2,000Philanthropy$2,000

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 budgetPETALUMA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $243,827 over 4y, 11% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SONOMA-MARIN: $157,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetA CHRISTMAS FOR KIDS: $15,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetNORTH BAY CHILDRENS CENTER INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSebastopol Rotary Education Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF SONOMA COUNTY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDESERT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK: $2,000 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 Heck FoundationSonoma County Communi…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Heck FoundationCA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Heck Foundation · Sonoma County Community Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 The Barella Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Barella Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Barella Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Barella Family 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.

    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 12 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Barella Family’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