Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Green Street Foundation of San Francisco

Its FY2018 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$375k
Granted FY2018
12
Grants FY2018
4
States reached
$88k
Largest
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 2018.

Crime & Legal$292kPublic Benefit$86kArts & Culture$76kCivil Rights$45kHuman Services$11kPhilanthropy$10kScience & Tech$6k
02FY2018 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k5 grants · $22k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $141k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $212k
$35,295
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE - NYU SCHOOL OF LAW$88,238
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE$70,590
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER$52,942
COMMITTEE TO PROJECT JOURNALISTS - DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT$35,295
PROPUBLICA$35,295
CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER$35,295
THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY$35,295
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE - NYU SCHOOL OF LAW$9,989
NPR$3,000
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION$3,000
PROJECT NIGHT NIGHT$3,000
CHARITY WATER$3,000
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 (FY17–18, $11k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 50% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%PROJECT NIGHT NIGHT: $3k → 10%CHARITY WATER: $3k → 17%PROJECT NIGHT NIGHT: $3k → 10%CHARITY WATER: $3k → 17%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.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$311k · 7 repeat orgs$204k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
2

Total granted

$311k
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+17%
+263%

Still filing today

71%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $159k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
Crime & LegalHuman ServicesPublic BenefitArts & CultureOther
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

  • LAWYERS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $106k · revenue +161%
  • EF
    Electronic Frontier Foundation Inc
    2× · 2017–2018 · $6k · revenue +24%
  • CHARITY GLOBAL INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $6k · revenue +17%

Funded once

  • D
    DEMOS
    one grant, 2017 · $35k
  • AC
    AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +263%
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
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of the District of Columbia

Preservation of civil liberties through litigation and public education.

—
2
Center for Popular Democracy Inc

The center for popular democracy (cpd) and its affiliates know that everyday people have the power to change the world. we upend business and politics as usual to forge a representative, multiracial government and society where we all…

Public Benefit
3
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

The american civil liberties union of northern california (aclu nc union) defends and advances the principles of freedom, equality and justice contained in the united states constitution. aclu nc union, a california mutual benefit…

—
4
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Iowa

The foundation works to defend and promote the constitution of the united states, focusing especially on the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and 14th amendments. the foundation also works to defend and promote the constitution of the…

Civil Rights
5
Center for American Progress

The center for american progress (cap) is an independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all americans through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. our aim is…

Civil Rights
6
Liberty Justice Center

To advance economic and social liberties and a free enterprise society through strategic litigation, training, communication, activism and research. in addition, the center will train law students, lawyers and policy activists in the…

Crime & Legal
7
New Civil Liberties Alliance

Public interest legal activities

Arts & Culture
8
Public Knowledge

Public knowledge promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. we work to shape policy on behalf of the public interest.

Public Benefit
9
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon Inc

The aclu foundation of oregon is dedicated to preserving and defending civil liberties and civil rights.

Civil Rights
10
Council for Court Excellence

Council for court excellence's (cce's) mission is to bring people together to conduct research, educate, and advocate to make d.c.'s unique legal systems more just, equitable, and accountable to the community.

—
11
Consumer Attorneys of California

To advance the science of jurisprudence; to establish a closer relationship of the members with the state bar association of california; to promote the administration of justice and the uniformity of legislation and judicial decisions; to…

—
12
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California Inc

The american civil liberties union foundation of northern california (aclu nc foundation) defends and advances the principles of freedom, equality and justice contained in the united states constitution. aclu nc foundation, a california…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Campaign Legal Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Charity Global 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

10 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. 10 of the 14 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE - NYU SCHOOL OF LAW: $133,227 · OtherBRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE - NYU SCHOOL OF LAWCOMMITTEE TO PROJECT JOURNALISTS - DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: $35,295 · OtherCOMMITTEE TO PROJECT JOURNALISTS - DEVELOPMENT D…DEMOS: $35,000 · OtherDEMOSAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · Other+2 more: $11,000 · OtherLAWYERS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS INC: $105,590 · Crime & LegalLAWYERS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS INCCONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER: $52,942 · Crime & LegalCONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTERTHE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER INC: $35,295 · Crime & LegalTHE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER INCTHE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: $50,295 · Public BenefitTHE CENTER…PRO PUBLICA INC: $35,295 · Arts & CulturePROJECT NIGHT NIGHT: $5,500 · Human ServicesCHARITY GLOBAL INC: $5,500 · Human ServicesSONOMA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Philanthropy
Other$224,522Crime & Legal$193,827Public Benefit$50,295Arts & Culture$35,295Human Services$11,000Philanthropy$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLAWYERS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS INC: $105,590 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetCONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER: $52,942 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: $50,295 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetPRO PUBLICA INC: $35,295 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER INC: $35,295 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetSONOMA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetElectronic Frontier Foundation Inc: $5,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT NIGHT NIGHT: $5,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCHARITY GLOBAL INC: $5,500 over 2y, 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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO7.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Green Street Foundation of San Francisco funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Green Street Foundation of San Francisco. 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Lawyers for Civil Rights Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
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.

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 14 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Green Street Foundation of San Francisco’s filings →

More from the funding graph