Skip to content
The Brotherton Fund at a glance

· Public charity

The Brotherton Fund

The Brotherton Fund was established to support the former St.

$196k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$196k
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, FY2017 to 2023.

Health$3.2MHuman Services$239kEducation$93kYouth Development$73kPhilanthropy$58kHousing & Shelter$37kCivil Rights$25kInternational$21kOther$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$196,112
Median grant
1
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
California Pacific Medical Center Foundation$196,112
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 (FY17–22, $178k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%CERI: $21k → 10%EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES: $12k → 10%FAMILY CONNECTIONS CENTERS: $23k → 10%FAMILY CONNECTIONS CENTERS: $23k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $23k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $23k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $13k → 10%LARKIN STREET YOUTH: $18k → 10%LARKIN STREET YOUTH: $13k → 10%LARKIN STREET YOUTH: $13k → 10%RAPHAEL HOUSE: $718 → 10%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.8M · 10 repeat orgs$156k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +100% since the first grant, against +52% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
10

Total granted

$3.8M
$156k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+100%
+52%

Still filing today

90%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
Human ServicesHealthEducationCivil RightsYouth DevelopmentHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • CP
    CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $3.4M · revenue +32%
  • GS
    Good Samaritan Family Resource Center of San Francisco
    4× · 2017–2020 · $92k · revenue +184%
  • Homeless Prenatal Program Inc
    3× · 2017–2020 · $73k · revenue +153%

Funded once

  • 3S
    3RD STREET YOUTH CENTER AND CLINICgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $30k · revenue +66%
  • RT
    REBUILDING TOGETHER SAN FRANCISCO
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue -3%
  • RA
    RISE ACADEMY
    one grant, 2020 · $23k
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
The San Francisco Particular Council of the Society of St Vincent De Paul

The mission of the st. vincent de paul society of san francisco (svdp-sf) is to offer hope and service on a direct person-to-person basis, working to break the cycles of homelessness and domestic violence.

Human Services
2
Homeless Childrens Network

To provide direct mental health services, psychotherapy, and counseling to homeless families in San Francisco, CA and in particular to children of such families, to provide referral services for such families and their children to other…

Human Services
3
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco Inc

The Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco is dedicated to combating the displacement crisis gripping our city by building the power of working-class tenants of color to take on the real estate industry and win housing justice for all.…

Education
4
Curry Senior Center

To provide services to seniors that promote independent living while maintaining their dignity and self-esteem.

Human Services
5
Bayview Hunters Point for Community Improvement

Provide support services for the community relating to mental health, substance abuse, youth services & violence prevention.

—
6
Sutter Bay Hospitals

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
7
Asian and Pacific Islander Wellness Center Inc

Our core belief at San Francisco Community Health Center is that everyone deserves to be healthy and needs access to the highest quality health care. Our mission is to transform lives by advancing health, wellness and equality.

Health
8
Sacramento Children's Home

At the sacramento children's home, we are committed to opening doors to the future by maximizing the potential of children and families.

Human Services
9
Union Station Homeless Services

We work to end homelessness through housing solutions, supportive services, and connection to community. we advocate for equitable and just systems that ensure all individuals and families will have a safe place they can call home.

Human Services
10
Wellnest Emotional Health & Wellness

Through a holistic approach to emotional well-being, Wellnest offers hope, healing, and opportunity to the children, young adults, families, and communities we serve. Our commitment remains steadfast as we enter our second century of…

Human Services
11
Edgewood Center for Children and Families

To be the place to begin for all bay area children, youth and families who need mental health, social services and academic support. edgewood is the premier provider of a full continuum of behavioral health services that transform the…

Health
12
San Francisco Ladies Protection and Relief Society
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Family Connections Centers; the most unlike its peers is The Gubbio Project Inc. 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

17 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. 17 of the 21 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/17
Grantees still filing
16/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $3,361,187 · HealthCALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION+2 more: $117,500 · HealthGood Samaritan Family Resource Center of San Francisco: $91,500 · OtherCovia Communities: $36,000 · OtherRISE ACADEMY: $22,500 · OtherRISE ACADEMY: $22,500 · OtherTHE GUBBIO PROJECT INC: $21,000 · OtherPROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF CALIFORNIA: $12,500 · Other+2 more: $10,000 · OtherTIDES CENTER: $57,500 · Human ServicesFAMILY CONNECTIONS CENTERS: $45,000 · Human ServicesLarkin Street Youth Services: $42,500 · Human ServicesCENTER FOR EMPOWERING REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS: $21,000 · Human ServicesEPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO: $11,500 · Human Services+1 more: $718 · Human ServicesSan Francisco Achievers: $35,000 · Education3RD STREET YOUTH CENTER AND CLINIC: $30,000 · Youth DevelopmentSan Francisco CASA: $25,000 · Civil RightsREBUILDING TOGETHER SAN FRANCISCO: $25,000 · Housing & Shelter
Health$3,478,687Other$216,000Human Services$178,218Education$35,000Youth Development$30,000Civil Rights$25,000Housing & Shelter$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $3,361,187 over 9y, 1.7% of budgetGood Samaritan Family Resource Center of San Francisco: $91,500 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetHomeless Prenatal Program Inc: $72,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetTIDES CENTER: $57,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE VILLAGE PROJECT INC: $45,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetFAMILY CONNECTIONS CENTERS: $45,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetLarkin Street Youth Services: $42,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCovia Communities: $36,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSan Francisco Achievers: $35,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budget3RD STREET YOUTH CENTER AND CLINIC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetSan Francisco CASA: $25,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetREBUILDING TOGETHER SAN FRANCISCO: $25,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetCENTER FOR EMPOWERING REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS: $21,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetEPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO: $11,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAN FRANCISCO FREE CLINIC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetRAPHAEL HOUSE OF SAN FRANCISCO INC: $718 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 San Francisco Fou…Kaiser Foundation Hos…Marin Community Found…Silicon Valley Commun…Sisters of St Joseph …Crankstart FoundationEpiscopal Impact Fund…Walter and Elise Haas…Evelyn and Walter Haa…Stupski FoundationUnited Way of the Bay…McNabb Foundation
The San Francisco FoundationCA21.9× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The San Francisco Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Marin Community Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Sisters of St Joseph Healthcare Foundation · Crankstart Foundation · Episcopal Impact Fund FKA Episcopal Charities · Walter and Elise Haas Fund · Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr Fund · Stupski Foundation · United Way of the Bay Area · McNabb 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 Brotherton Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Brotherton Fund. 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 Brotherton Fund?

    Find your warmest path to The Brotherton Fund 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 21 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 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 Brotherton’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