· Private foundation
The Isabel Allende 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 $10k11 grants · $46k
- $10k–50k29 grants · $543k
- $50k–250k16 grants · $1.4M
- $250k+1 grant · $310k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GLOBAL FUND FOR WOMEN | $310,000 |
| NEPAL YOUTH FOUNDATION | $145,000 |
| TOO YOUNG TO WED | $130,000 |
| THE BRIGID ALLIANCE | $125,000 |
| ADESO | $125,000 |
| THISTLE FARMS INC | $110,000 |
| CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS | $100,000 |
| REFUGE POINT | $100,000 |
| IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE | $65,000 |
| EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT | $65,000 |
| ARMAND HAMMER UNITED WORLD COLLEGE OF THE AMERICAN WEST | $60,000 |
| KIND | $60,000 |
| YOUNG CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDREN'S RIGHTS | $60,000 |
| FLORENCE IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS PROJECT | $60,000 |
| MUJERES UNIDAS Y ACTIVAS | $55,000 |
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, $1.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 75% 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 13% of The Isabel Allende Foundation’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, 48% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 34% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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.
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 +65% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
106 repeat relationships — 46 still active in FY2024, 60 since wound down; 11 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, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $188k 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
- GFGLOBAL FUND FOR WOMEN INC8× · 2017–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +74%
- TFTHISTLE FARMS INC8× · 2017–2024 · $939k · revenue +186%
- NYNEPAL YOUTH FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · $877k · revenue +60%
Funded once
- SSISTERREACHgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +71%
- ADAFRICAN DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONSone grant, 2023 · $50k
- SWSISTERSONG WOMEN OF COLOR REPRODUCTIVEone grant, 2020 · $30k
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.
Pangea's mission is to provide deportation defense services, advocate for policy change, and provide education and legal empowerment for our immigrant communities.
To improve the lives and protect the rights of women, children and youth displaced by conflict and crisis. the women's refugee commission envisions a world in which refugees are safe, healthy and reliant and seeks to drive change in…
To promote and protect human rights in the United States and around the world.
To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.
The LGBTAP is the only San Francisco nonprofit organization exclusively dedicated to providing accessible legal representation for LGBT asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution due to their sexual orientation, gener identity and/or HIV…
To provide transformative legal services that enable diverse communities in East Palo Alto and beyond to achieve a secure and thriving future.
Center for Intimacy Justice (CIJ) works to create equity and wellbeing in people's intimate lives. CIJ's first program is changing Big Tech platforms discriminatory suppression of womens sexual and reproductive health information online.
The international institute on race, equality and human rights contributes to the promotion and defense of human rights, through training, technical assistance, advocacy, and strategic litigation conducted at the regional and international…
Forward Together is a national reproductive justice organization that centers people, families, and communities who experience reproductive oppression. They prioritize queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color and utilize…
Women's law project creates a more just and equitable society by advancing the rights and status of all women throughout their lives. to this end, we engage in high-impact litigation, advocacy, and education. the core values of women's law…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ms Foundation for Women Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Khaled Hosseini Foundation. 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 28 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) — 4% 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.
103 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. 103 of the 179 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 GLOBAL FUND FOR WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds THISTLE FARMS INC ↗
- Who funds NEPAL YOUTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds Too Young to Wed Inc ↗
- Who funds REFUGEPOINT INC ↗
- Who funds EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds Mujeres Unidas y Activas ↗
- Who funds Homeless Prenatal Program Inc ↗
- Who funds IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE ↗
- Who funds KIND INC ↗
- Who funds THE YOUNG CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDRENS RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds FLORENCE IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE RIGHTS PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds THE BRIGID ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona Inc ↗
- Who funds THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds MS FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds HUCKLEBERRY YOUTH PROGRAMS INC ↗
- Who funds THE ARMAND HAMMER UNITED WORLD COLLEGE OF THE AMER ↗
- Who funds MOTIVATING INSPIRING SUPPORTING AND SERVING SEXUALLY EXPLOITED YOUTH ↗
- Who funds LA COCINA ↗
- Who funds Global Response Management Inc ↗
- Who funds RIPPLE EFFECT IMAGES ↗
- Who funds SCHOLARMATCH INC ↗
- Who funds SISTERREACH ↗
- Who funds IFWHENHOW ↗
- Who funds Center for Domestic Peace ↗
- Who funds North Marin Community Services ↗
- Who funds MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE ↗
- Who funds CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA ↗
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 San Francisco Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Tides Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · McNabb Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Bothin Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Leonard & Beryl Buck 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 Isabel Allende 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.
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.