Skip to content
The Joseph and Vera Long Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Joseph and Vera Long 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.

$5.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
95
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$800k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Environment$20MHealth$9.4MHuman Services$3.5MAnimals$3.2MEducation$3.0MYouth Development$2.2MArts & Culture$1.9MCommunity Improvement$935kOther$0
02FY2025 · 95 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k77 grants · $1.6M
  • $50k–250k15 grants · $1.5M
  • $250k+3 grants · $2.4M
$25,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$139M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION$800,000
MULTIPLIER$800,000
WINDWARD FUND$800,000
RIVER PARTNERS$200,000
MARIN CITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER$150,000
SANTA CRUZ COMMUNITY HEALTH$150,000
ASHBY VILLAGE$150,000
SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL$120,000
THE CERES COMMUNITY PROJECT$100,000
UCSF FOUNDATION$100,000
MOTHERS' MILK BANK CALIFORNIA$92,244
ASHBY VILLAGE$75,000
ON THE MOVE$60,000
INSTITUTE ON AGING$60,000
CURRY SENIOR CENTER$60,000
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 (FY17–25, $3.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 64% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%GOLD COUNTRY COMMUNITY SERVICES: $50k → 11%ON THE MOVE: $60k → 9%CERES COMMUNITY PROJECT: $75k → 9%ON THE MOVE: $50k → 9%THE CERES COMMUNITY PROJECT: $50k → 9%WAIKIKI COMMUNITY CENTER: $25k → 9%ON THE MOVE: $30k → 9%GIRLVENTURES: $30k → 10%NORTH BAY CHILDREN'S CENTER INC: $45k → 8%CERES COMMUNITY PROJECT: $30k → 9%GIRLVENTURES: $25k → 10%HALE HAUOLI HAWAII: $30k → 9%GIRLVENTURES: $25k → 10%GIRLVENTURES: $25k → 10%FIERCE ADVOCATES: $50k → 9%MENTIS: $25k → 9%INSTITUTE ON AGING: $100k → 10%MENTIS: $25k → 9%FIERCE ADVOCATES: $49k → 9%INSTITUTE ON AGING: $100k → 10%FIERCE ADVOCATES: $40k → 9%CORAZON HEALDSBURG: $25k → 9%INSTITUTE ON AGING: $60k → 10%INSTITUTE ON AGING: $60k → 10%INSTITUTE ON AGING: $50k → 10%SIENA HOUSE MATERNITY HOME OF SANTA CRUZ: $40k → 13%INSTITUTE ON AGING: $30k → 10%VIVALON: $25k → 8%XENOPHON THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER: $25k → 9%LAS TRAMPAS SCHOOL INC: $300k → 9%GIRLS INC OF ALAMEDA COUNTY: $75k → 10%CENTER FOR ELDERS' INDEPENDENCE: $50k → 10%CEI FOUNDATION: $50k → 10%GIRLS INC OF ALAMEDA COUNTY: $30k → 10%GIRLS INC OF ALAMEDA COUNTY: $30k → 10%GIRLS INC OF ALAMEDA COUNTY: $30k → 10%EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SF: $35k → 10%ASHBY VILLAGE: $150k → 10%ASHBY VILLAGE: $84k → 10%ASHBY VILLAGE: $80k → 10%ASHBY VILLAGE: $75k → 10%ASHBY VILLAGE: $75k → 10%BIRTH COMPANIONS COMMUNITY CENTER: $40k → 10%ASHBY VILLAGE: $75k → 10%CURRY SENIOR CENTER: $60k → 10%CURRY SENIOR CENTER: $49k → 10%MERCY RETIREMENT & CARE CENTER: $60k → 10%SEQUOIA LIVING: $60k → 10%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MT
IL
OR
NV
CA
CO
VA
MD
TN
DC
HI
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 9% of The Joseph and Vera Long Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 87% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 80%.

The Joseph and Vera Long Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 17% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$34M · 113 repeat orgs$8.5M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +41% since the first grant, against +31% for those funded once.

113 repeat relationships: 50 still active in FY2025, 63 since wound down; 41 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

113
164

Total granted

$34M
$7.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+41%
+31%

Still filing today

95%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentHealthHuman ServicesArts & CultureEducationYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • CF
    CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $3.8M · revenue +96%
  • DU
    Ducks Unlimited Inc
    3× · 2020–2022 · $2.3M · revenue +105%
  • UO
    University of the Pacific
    4× · 2017–2020 · $2.0M · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • LT
    Las Trampas School Incgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $300k · revenue +28%
  • DC
    DIENTES COMMUNITY DENTAL CAREgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $250k · revenue +58%
  • ST
    SAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUEgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $200k · revenue +59%
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
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
2
California Coastkeeper dba California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Coastkeeper Alliance unites Waterkeeper programs statewide to fight for swimmable, fishable, and drinkable waters for all Californians.

Environment
3
Bay Nature Institute dba Bay Nature Bay Nature Magazine

Bay Nature connects the people of the San Francisco Bay Area to our natural world and motivates people to solve problems with nature in mind. Our vision is that all people have a close relationship with theirnatural world.

Environment
4
Canopy

Canopy collaborates with communities to grow and sustain equitable urban forests for all

Environment
5
Santa Cruz Local Inc

Independent nonpartisan newsroom serving Santa Cruz County, California we are all watching and engaged in our local government, our needs are addressed, democracy works better and our community is stronger.

—
6
Ecology Action of Santa Cruz

The primary and specific purpose for which the said corporation is formed is to empower individuals, businesses and communities to take actions today that achieve environmental and economic sustainability. The activities of the corporation…

Environment
7
Sonoma Botanical Garden
—
8
California School-Age Consortium Inc

The California School-Age Consortium (CalSAC) builds professional networks that provide training, leadership development and advocacy to ensure that all young people have access to high quality out-of-school time programs and to create a…

—
9
San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory

The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory is dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitats through science and outreach.

Environment
10
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment
11
Active San Gabriel Valley

Active San Gabriel Valley (ActiveSGV) is a community-based environmental advocacy and public health non-profit organization. Our mission is to promote a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley.

Community Improvement
12
Sonoma Mountain Institute
Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Foundation of the Napa Valley; the most unlike its peers is Acton Digital Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

281 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 281 of the 324 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
64
Early backer (in before they grew)
277/281
Grantees still filing
186/281
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WINDWARD FUND: $2,400,000 · EnvironmentWINDWARD FUNDMULTIPLIER: $2,400,000 · EnvironmentMULTIPLIERDucks Unlimited Inc: $2,325,000 · EnvironmentDucks Unlimited IncCALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION: $1,986,505 · EnvironmentCALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATIO…+29 more: $3,060,900 · Environment+29 moreIndividual grant recipient: $2,129,956 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $1,000,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYYOSEMITE FOUNDATION: $1,200,000 · OtherYOSEMITE FOUNDATIONCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $710,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY INITIATIVESCONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA: $1,070,000 · OtherCONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFO…+82 more: $5,854,913 · Other+82 moreUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $3,512,560 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CA…University of the Pacific: $2,000,000 · EducationUniversity of th…+9 more: $911,821 · Education+9 moreSANTA CRUZ COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS: $989,000 · HealthSANTA CRUZ …LIFELONG MEDICAL CARE: $350,000 · HealthLIFELONG ME…LA CLINICA DE LA RAZA INC: $298,000 · HealthLA CLINICA …MARIN CITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER: $270,000 · HealthMARIN CITY …DIENTES COMMUNITY DENTAL CARE: $250,000 · HealthDIENTES COM…South County Community Health Center Inc dba Ravenswood Family Health Center: $200,000 · HealthPlanned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo Inc: $170,000 · HealthPostpartum Support Center: $170,000 · HealthALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $166,832 · HealthPali Momi Foundation: $150,000 · Health+23 more: $1,476,950 · Health+23 moreCLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION: $3,800,000 · Science & TechCLIMATEWO…Ashby Village Inc: $539,900 · Human ServicesINSTITUTE ON AGING: $400,000 · Human ServicesTHE CERES COMMUNITY PROJECT: $355,000 · Human ServicesLas Trampas School Inc: $300,000 · Human ServicesON THE MOVE: $175,000 · Human ServicesGIRLS INCORPORATED OF ALAMEDA COUNTY: $165,000 · Human ServicesFIERCE Advocates Families & Individuals Equitably Rooted in Collective Empowerme: $139,000 · Human ServicesTIDES CENTER: $125,000 · Human ServicesCURRY SENIOR CENTER: $109,000 · Human ServicesGIRLVENTURES: $105,000 · Human Services+14 more: $720,000 · Human ServicesGIRL SCOUTS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: $1,000,000 · Youth DevelopmentYES Nature to Neighborhoods: $410,000 · Youth DevelopmentCIVICORPS: $115,000 · Youth DevelopmentCAMP PHOENIX: $90,000 · Youth DevelopmentEAST BAY ASIAN YOUTH CENTER: $90,000 · Youth DevelopmentCOACHARTORG: $83,740 · Youth Development+5 more: $219,000 · Youth Development
Environment$12,172,405Other$11,964,869Education$6,424,381Health$4,490,782Science & Tech$3,800,000Human Services$3,132,900Youth Development$2,007,740

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION: $3,800,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $3,512,560 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetWINDWARD FUND: $2,400,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetMULTIPLIER: $2,400,000 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc: $2,325,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetUniversity of the Pacific: $2,000,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION: $1,986,505 over 2y, 5.6% of budgetYOSEMITE FOUNDATION: $1,200,000 over 6y, 2.9% of budgetCONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA: $1,070,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $1,000,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: $1,000,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetSANTA CRUZ COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS: $989,000 over 7y, 1.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $710,000 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetAshby Village Inc: $539,900 over 5y, 25% of budgetYES Nature to Neighborhoods: $410,000 over 6y, 3.6% of budgetINSTITUTE ON AGING: $400,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CERES COMMUNITY PROJECT: $355,000 over 4y, 4.4% of budgetLIFELONG MEDICAL CARE: $350,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $335,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetLas Trampas School Inc: $300,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetLA CLINICA DE LA RAZA INC: $298,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetMARIN CITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER: $270,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetNATUREBRIDGE: $250,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetDIENTES COMMUNITY DENTAL CARE: $250,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetPUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION ENTERPRISES INC: $225,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLuna Kids Dance Inc dba Luna Dance Institute Luna Dance & Creativity: $200,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE: $200,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetRIVER PARTNERS: $200,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetREDFORD CENTER INC: $200,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetSouth County Community Health Center Inc dba Ravenswood Family Health Center: $200,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetMOTHERS' MILK BANK CALIFORNIA: $190,244 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetThe Junior Center of Art and Science: $187,821 over 3y, 16% of budgetPROJECT DRAWDOWN: $180,000 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetON THE MOVE: $175,000 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetDestiny Arts Center: $175,000 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MENDOCINO COUNTY: $172,250 over 6y, 0.8% of budgetPlanned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo Inc: $170,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetPostpartum Support Center: $170,000 over 4y, 16% of budgetVIDA VERDE NATURE EDUCATION: $169,000 over 7y, 3.8% of budgetALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $166,832 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetGIRLS INCORPORATED OF ALAMEDA COUNTY: $165,000 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetSEMPERVIRENS FUND: $150,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetScripps College: $150,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetClaremont McKenna College: $150,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $150,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE OAKLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND: $150,000 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetPali Momi Foundation: $150,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetFAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES OF WEST HAWAII: $145,000 over 3y, 1.7% 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.

McNabb FoundationBothin FoundationThe San Francisco Fou…East Bay Community Fo…Marin Community Found…Kaiser Foundation Hos…The Morris Stulsaft F…Clif Family FoundationThe William G Irwin C…Sutter Bay HospitalsMonterey Peninsula Fo…The David and Lucile …
McNabb FoundationDE91.9× affinity62 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: McNabb Foundation · Bothin Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · The Morris Stulsaft Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · The William G Irwin Charity Foundation · Sutter Bay Hospitals · Monterey Peninsula Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

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 Joseph and Vera Long Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Joseph and Vera Long Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Western Rivers Conservancy: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
85report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 324 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Joseph and Vera Long’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home