· Private foundation
The Cappetta Family Foundationinc
Its FY2024 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k34 grants · $92k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $96k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GLOBAL COMMUNITIES | $25,800 |
| EMILIO NARES FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| FEEDING SAN DIEGO | $25,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND | $10,000 |
| JOAN B KROK SCHOOL OF PEACE STUDIE | $10,000 |
| BARRIO LOGAN COLLEGE INSTITUTE | $5,000 |
| THE TANK | $5,000 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS | $5,000 |
| MONARCH SCHOOL | $5,000 |
| LYME DISEASEORG | $5,000 |
| BENNINGTON COLLEGE | $5,000 |
| LA JOLLA INSTITUTE FOR IMMUNOLOGY | $5,000 |
| SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| ALPHA PROJECT | $5,000 |
| FOODTANKCOM | $5,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $58k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 30% 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.
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 +38% since the first grant, against +9% for the ones you funded once.
68 repeat relationships — 32 still active in FY2024, 36 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k 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
Cornell University6× · 2018–2023 · $165k · revenue +49%- ENEmilio Nares Foundation8× · 2017–2024 · $150k · revenue +65%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO2× · 2017–2018 · $76k · revenue +60%
Funded once
- GCGLOBAL COMMUNITIESone grant, 2022 · $15k
- KSKROC SCHOOL GENERAL FUNDone grant, 2023 · $10k
- VFVOICES FOR CHILDRENgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +44%
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
To launch breakthrough climate mitigation efforts by identifying, supporting, and unleashing innovative leaders with transformative strategies.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues. we provide leadership, outreach and communication support, grants, and investments to empower leaders and their ideas…
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
We empower directors and transform boards to be future ready.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Soul Fire Farm Institute Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Tank Ltd. 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 31 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) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 1% 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.
76 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. 76 of the 146 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 Cornell University ↗
- Who funds Emilio Nares Foundation ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL COMMUNITIES ↗
- Who funds PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds GIVEDIRECTLY INC ↗
- Who funds Fordham University ↗
- Who funds LYMEDISEASEORG ↗
- Who funds FEEDING SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds BARRIO LOGAN COLLEGE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds DZI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SECOND CHANCE INC ↗
- Who funds BENNINGTON COLLEGE CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds LA JOLLA INSTITUTE FOR IMMUNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds Rancho Santa Fe Womens Fund ↗
- Who funds ACCESSCIRCLES INC ↗
- Who funds KISS THE GROUND ↗
- Who funds THEATER & ARTS FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY DBA LA JOLLA PLAYHOUSE ↗
- Who funds VOICES FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION SDSU RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ASPETUCK LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL LYME ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds Environmental Health Coalition ↗
- Who funds SCRIPPS HEALTH ↗
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 Foundation of San Diego · The San Diego Foundation · Rancho Santa Fe Foundation · Price Philanthropies Foundation · Sempra Foundation · The Conrad Prebys Foundation · Tides Foundation · Impactassetsinc · The Annenberg Foundation · Conrad N Hilton Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Mufg Union Bank Foundation Ag
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 Cappetta Family Foundationinc 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.
- Global Communities — 44% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Aspetuck Land Trust — 28% of income from government
- Bennington College Corporation — 0% of income from government
- Wounded Warrior Project 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.