How much did THE FRANKLIN AND CATHERINE JOHNSON grant in FY2022?

Education$1.1MYouth Development$510kEnvironment$250kHealth$205kArts & Culture$160kPhilanthropy$110kInternational$80kHuman Services$60kEmployment$50kOther$1.4M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

sitesmusicpartners

2020

redwood sitespartners

2021

teen success

2022

supports

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2022 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2022

Under $10k1 grant · $5k
$10k–50k22 grants · $634k
$50k–250k1 grant · $50k

$30,000

Median grant

States reached

$14k

Total assets

Largest grants

FRESH LIFELINES FOR YOUTH$50,000
SHINE TOGETHER$40,000
RAVENSWOOD EDUCATION FOUNDATION$40,000
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS ACADEMY$40,000
COLLEGE TRACK$40,000
EAST PALO ALTO CHARTER SCHOOL$40,000
FAMILY CONNECTIONS$30,000
ACKNOWLEDGE ALLIANCE$30,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE PENINSULA$30,000
EAST PALO ALTO ACADEMY FOUNDATION$30,000
ALL FIVE$30,000
FOUNDATION FOR A COLLEGE EDUCATION$30,000
LITLAB$30,000
ART OF YOGA$30,000
JUMA VENTURES$25,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY19–20, $60k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

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, United Way ALICE — 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 8% of THE FRANKLIN AND CATHERINE JOHNSON’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. Read by recipient address, 95% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 91% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

THE FRANKLIN AND CATHERINE JOHNSONlessmore of its giving

Placed by recipient address · 4.1% directed abroad (not shown)

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.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$3.7M · 44 repeat orgs$235k to everyone else

44 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2022, 22 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$3.7M

$175k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+6%

+317%

Still filing today

68%

43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EducationYouth DevelopmentEnvironmentArts & CultureHealthPhilanthropyOther

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

FL
FRESH LIFELINES FOR YOUTH
4× · 2019–2022 · $200k · revenue +30%
RE
RAVENSWOOD EDUCATION FOUNDATION
4× · 2019–2022 · $160k · revenue +217%
AA
ACKNOWLEDGE ALLIANCE
4× · 2019–2022 · $145k · revenue +21%

Funded once

S
SPARK
one grant, 2020 · $55k
MI
MUSIC IN THE SCHOOLS FOUNDATION
one grant, 2019 · $30k · revenue -5% · 34% of their budget
JW
JOHN W GARDNER CENTER AT STANFORD
one grant, 2019 · $25k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

San Francisco Girls' School

to educate and inspire girls to become innovators and leaders in stem.

—

Pacific East Quality Education

YCIS Silicon Valley is a welcoming school community where all children from preschool through grade 8 are encouraged to find and follow their gifts as they learn in both Chinese and English. Our goal:to help our students become…

Education

Tomorrow's Leadership Collaborative

A california public charter school which serves grades kindergarten through five.

—

The Peak School

The peak school seeks to ignite a passion for learning, to develop students of diverse talents and backgrounds who think critically and act with integrity, and to graduate compassionate, confident, capable students who will embrace their…

Education

Institute for Applied Tinkering

Institute for Applied Tinkering IAT develops, practices and shares educational methods that challenge and support all children to engage deeply in their learning via real interests and real tools.

Youth Development

Silicon Schools Fund Inc

Support the launch of excellent new schools and innovative practices that improve education.

Education

California Competes

California Competes: Higher Education for a Strong Economy is a nonpartisan policy and research organization focused on identifying solutions to the states most critical challenges at the intersection of higher education, equity, and the…

Education

Marin Academy

Independent, co-educational, college preparatory high school located in san rafael, california.

Education

San Francisco University High School

San francisco university high school welcomes students (continued on schedule o)

Education

The California Education Partners

Supporting learning and collaboration between california's school districts and their partners to improve student success.

Education

French American School of Silicon Valley

To provide students with an academically excellent bilingual and bicultural education which empowers them to succeed in both the french and american education systems and to fully realize their potential as global citizens.

Education

Junior Achievement of Sacramento Inc

Provide in school programs that educate and inspire young people to value free enterprise, understand business, economics and improve the quality of their lives.

International

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fresh Lifelines for Youth Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Tech Interactive. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 25 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/36

the rest of the field

10%

2,456/24,582

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.

06the grantee network

36 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

35/36

Grantees still filing

22/36

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$1,640,000Education$1,056,000Youth Development$510,000Environment$250,000Health$205,000Arts & Culture$160,000Philanthropy$110,000

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.

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.

The Palo Alto Community FundCA44× affinity18 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Palo Alto Community Fund · Atkinson Foundation · Philanthropic Ventures Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Embarcadero Media Foundation · Sand Hill Foundation · Bothin Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San · The James and Rebecca Morgan

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 organisation THE FRANKLIN AND CATHERINE JOHNSON 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: SHINE TOGETHER.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~24 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 5 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

5 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 2.8× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 833683283 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on SHINE TOGETHER, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 24 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 58% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to The Franklin and Catherine Johnson?

Find your warmest path to The Franklin and Catherine Johnson through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

THE FRANKLIN AND CATHERINE JOHNSON

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Where the work is directed

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

36 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Franklin and Catherine Johnson?

More from the funding graph

THE FRANKLIN AND CATHERINE JOHNSON

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Where the work is directed

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

36 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Franklin and Catherine Johnson?

More from the funding graph