· Private foundation
The James and Rebecca Morgan Charitable Foundation
Its FY2025 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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 41% of THE JAMES AND REBECCA MORGAN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $5k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $88k
- $50k–250k14 grants · $1.6M
- $250k+7 grants · $4.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST - MF | $1,000,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000,000 |
| THE NATURE CONSERVANCY | $975,000 |
| COMMON SENSE MEDIA | $500,000 |
| SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY | $333,334 |
| THE TECH MUSEUM | $325,000 |
| CALIFORNIA FORWARD | $300,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $200,000 |
| FOOTHILL DEANZA FOUNDATION | $200,000 |
| FEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST | $150,000 |
| BAY AREA WOMENS SPORTS INITIATIVE | $125,000 |
| UPWARDS SCHOLARS | $100,000 |
| THE BETTER ANGELS SOCIETY | $100,000 |
| MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| CHILDREN NOW | $100,000 |
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 (FY18–25, $403k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 38% 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 +34% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.
28 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 18 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 46% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.2M 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
- CSCOMMON SENSE MEDIA4× · 2022–2025 · $1.6M · revenue +54%
- TSTHEATREWORKS SILICON VALLEY4× · 2018–2024 · $686k · revenue +15%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE INC4× · 2017–2023 · $655k · revenue +37%
Funded once
- SVSILICON VALLEY FACESone grant, 2017 · $125k · revenue -98%
- FLFEATHER LAND TRUSTone grant, 2022 · $100k
- KSKICK STARTone grant, 2018 · $100k
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 mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…
The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The association serves its members by creating resources that enable california school administrators to develop and apply creative leadership and management skills and in turn, improve the educational process for all students.
The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.
To promote philanthropy to make santa cruz county a better place to live, now and in the future.we bring together people, ideas, and resources to inspire philanthropy and accomplish great things.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
See schedule okqed serves the people of northern california with a community-supported alternative to commercial media, providing the knowledge needed to make informed decisions; convening community dialogue; bringing the arts to everyone;…
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
The foundation's mission is to improve the oral health of all californians by supporting the dental profession and its efforts to meet community needs.
Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…
The uc santa barbara foundation actively works to further the goals of the university of california, santa barbara. the foundation seeks to maintain and nurture the university's quality and distinction. on behalf of the campus, the…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Excellence in Nonprofits and the most unlike its peers is Presidio Performing Arts Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
55 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. 55 of the 93 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 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds COMMON SENSE MEDIA ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA FORWARD ↗
- Who funds THE TECH INTERACTIVE ↗
- Who funds THEATREWORKS SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds CREATIVE LIVES INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE INC ↗
- Who funds SHINE TOGETHER INC ↗
- Who funds HEALTHIER KIDS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PRESIDENT-BOARD OF TRUSTEES SANTA CLARA COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds HARTNELL COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Bay Area Womens Sports Initiative ↗
- Who funds MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AVENIDAS ↗
- Who funds CalMatters ↗
- Who funds FOOTHILL-DEANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Upward Scholars ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY INITIATIVES ↗
- Who funds FEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds SILICON VALLEY FACES ↗
- Who funds THE BETTER ANGELS SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN NOW ↗
- Who funds San Jose Grail Family Services ↗
- Who funds Womens Sports Foundation ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds POSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The Sobrato Family Foundation · The James and Rebecca Morgan Family Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Philanthropic Ventures Foundation · The Heising-Simons Foundation · The Applied Materials Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · The George and Judy Marcus Family Foundation · The George and Judy Marcus Family Foundation II · Tosa 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 James and Rebecca Morgan Charitable 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.
- Creative Lives Inc — 0% of income from government
- Lighthouse School 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The James and Rebecca Morgan Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The James and Rebecca Morgan Charitable 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.