· Private foundation
The Deutsch Foundation
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 $10k3 grants · $11k
- $10k–50k19 grants · $432k
- $50k–250k46 grants · $4.9M
- $250k+5 grants · $2.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HOLOCAUST MUSEUM LA | $1,000,000 |
| COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT | $555,128 |
| PEOPLE CONCERN | $300,000 |
| SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRANTMAKERS | $250,000 |
| SKIRBALL CULTURAL CENTER | $250,000 |
| HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES | $175,000 |
| CCF COMMUNITY INITIATIVES FUND | $160,000 |
| LOS ANGELES YOUTH NETWORK | $155,000 |
| FULCRUM ARTS | $150,000 |
| LEADERSUP | $150,000 |
| UCLA JONSSON CANCER CENTER FOUNDATION | $150,000 |
| VENICE FAMILY CLINIC | $150,000 |
| LOS ANGELES LGBT CENTER | $150,000 |
| UNITED FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN | $140,000 |
| ST ANNE'S MATERNITY HOME | $125,000 |
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, $18.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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 +73% since the first grant, against +38% for the ones you funded once.
112 repeat relationships — 56 still active in FY2024, 56 since wound down; 13 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, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.5M 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
- CFCOALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT7× · 2017–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +684%
- TPTHE PEOPLE CONCERN8× · 2017–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +696%
- CPCOMMUNITY PARTNERS7× · 2017–2023 · $1.2M · revenue +266%
Funded once
- TFThe Foundation for Education Incgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $350k · revenue +148%
- CSCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $250k · revenue -16%
- OIORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $200k · revenue -36%
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 la conservation corps creates equitable opportunities for young people to build resilience in themselves, their communities and the environment through a program of work, education and support.
To advance educational equity. together with families, schools and the community, facilitate access to and opportunities for quality educational and wellness practices so that children thrive from diapers to diplomas.
Community organizing, education, advocacy, leadership development, direct services and organizational development for communities faced with immense poverty.
To improve the quality of life for the diverse communities we serve providing affordable and comprehensive healthcare and education in a welcoming multi-cultural environment.
South central los angeles regional center, (sclarc), believes special needs deserve special attention. we are committed to the provision of culturally sensitive services which enhance the inherent strengths of the family and enable…
Family promise of the south bay assists families experiencing housing insecurity with short-term shelter, case management, and navigation with the goal of creating a sustainable solution for their family.
strengthening the leadership and workforce skills of Day Laborers and Domestic Workers. through 5 Day Labor Centers, Workers Health Program & Mujeres en Accion using Education & outreach empowerment tools
The league of california community foundations promotes and strengthens community foundations in california. through collaboration and shared learning among member foundations and building partnerships with private and public entities, we…
To distribute public affairs and other educational information in order to create an electronic bridge between californians and their public officials, and, in the process educate a new generation of voting citizens and civic leaders who…
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,…
Intervening to protect and treat all victims of violence
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Safe Place for Youth Inc and the most unlike its peers is Friends of Israels Environment. 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 32 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.5% lost their exemption, against 16% 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.
189 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. 189 of the 220 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 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds THE PEOPLE CONCERN ↗
- Who funds Los Angeles Youth Network ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds St Anne's Family Services ↗
- Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds HATHAWAY-SYCAMORES CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ↗
- Who funds STEP UP ON SECOND STREET INC ↗
- Who funds HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES ↗
- Who funds THE JONSSON CANCER CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FULCRUM ARTS ↗
- Who funds HOLOCAUST MUSEUM LA ↗
- Who funds HILLSIDES ↗
- Who funds GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES VETERANS INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds LONG BEACH DAY NURSERY ↗
- Who funds PATH ↗
- Who funds WESTSIDE INFANT-FAMILY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRANTMAKERS ↗
- Who funds THE OREGON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds JVS SOCAL ↗
- Who funds THE RAPE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds VENICE FAMILY CLINIC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Imagine Los Angeles Inc ↗
- Who funds Foothill Family Service ↗
- Who funds LEADERSUP ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES LGBT CENTER ↗
- Who funds DOWNTOWN WOMEN'S CENTER ↗
- Who funds DOOR OF HOPE ↗
- Who funds THE WOODEN FLOOR FOR YOUTH MOVEMENT ↗
- Who funds EVERYBODY DANCE LA ↗
- Who funds iFoster Inc ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC COUNSEL ↗
- Who funds PARA LOS NINOS ↗
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 Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Weingart Foundation · The Ahmanson Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · California Community Foundation · The Rose Hills Foundation · United Way Inc · The Green Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Liberty Hill Foundation · The California Wellness Foundation · Conrad N Hilton 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 Deutsch 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.
- The Oregon Community Foundation — 2% 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 Deutsch Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Deutsch 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.