Skip to content
The Julius Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Julius Family 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.

$65k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$400kHealth$41kInternational$25kCivil Rights$21kYouth Development$15kFood & Nutrition$2kHuman Services$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $60k
$20,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$20k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRIENDS OF COSTCO GUILD$25,000
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS$20,000
A BETTER CHANCE$15,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
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 (FY17–20, $27k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $2k → 11%RWANDA GIRLS INITIATIVE: $20k → 9%RWANDA GIRLS INITIATIVE: $5k → 9%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.

68%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$346k · 3 repeat orgs$165k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$346k
$120k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-8%
+27%

Still filing today

100%
86%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 31% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $45k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’23’24
EnvironmentHuman ServicesCivil RightsYouth DevelopmentHealthFood & NutritionOther
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

  • SF
    SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY INITIATIVE INC
    2× · 2021–2023 · $300k · revenue +19%
  • RG
    Rwanda Girls Initiative
    2× · 2017–2018 · $25k · revenue -72%
  • CR
    CHILDREN'S RIGHTS INC
    2× · 2018–2024 · $21k · revenue -8%

Funded once

  • American Forestsgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue +47%
  • BC
    BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue -9%
  • CK
    CAMP KOREY
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +6%
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
Seattle Biomedical Research Institute

We conduct fundamental infectious disease research to generate critical new knowledge about pathogens and their interactions with see schedule o for continuationhumans to enable the discovery and development of novel interventions,…

—
2
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
3
Curesearch for Children's Cancer

Curesearch's mission is to fund & support targeted & innovative cancer research with measurable results, & to be the authoritative source of information & resources for all those affected by children's cancer. see schedule o for…

Health
4
Cancer Research Institute Inc

See schedule ocri is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cancer immunotherapy through scientific discovery and global collaboration. since 1953, cri has funded research that deepens understanding of the immune system and its…

Health
5
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
6
Global Forest Generation

Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…

Environment
7
Fauna & Flora International Usa Inc

Our mission is to act to conserve threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, based on sound science and take into account human needs.

Philanthropy
8
American Cancer Society Inc

Improve the lives of people with cancer and their families through advocacy, research, and patient support, to ensure everyone has an opportunity to prevent, detect, treat, and survive cancer.

Health
9
American College of Radiology Foundation

The mission of the acr foundation is to advance the profession and practice of radiology to benefit patients with a specific emphasis on health policy research.

Philanthropy
10
Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation

The samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…

—
11
Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research

The foundation for sarcoidosis research (fsr) is the leading international organization dedicated to finding a cure for sarcoidosis and improving care for sarcoidosis patients through research, education, and support. since its…

Philanthropy
12
Fsc I&P

Fsc i&p promotes environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests. this mission aligns with the forest stewardship council (fsc), its network of offices, and other organizations.…

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Rights Inc; the most unlike its peers is Blood Cancer United 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

11 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. 11 of the 13 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY INITIATIVE INC: $300,000 · EnvironmentSUSTAINABLE FORESTRY INITIATIVE INCAmerican Forests: $100,000 · EnvironmentAmerican ForestsSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL (DBA FRIENDS OF COSTCO GUILD): $25,000 · OtherSEATTLE CH…A BETTER CHANCE INC: $15,000 · OtherA BETTER C…Individual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherIndividual…+2 more: $1,500 · OtherRwanda Girls Initiative: $25,000 · Human ServicesMORSELIFE FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesCHILDREN'S RIGHTS INC: $21,000 · Civil RightsBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $10,000 · HealthCAMP KOREY: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentFRIENDS OF LACHAT INC: $1,000 · Food & Nutrition
Environment$400,000Other$46,500Human Services$27,000Civil Rights$21,000Health$10,000Youth Development$5,000Food & Nutrition$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSUSTAINABLE FORESTRY INITIATIVE INC: $300,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetAmerican Forests: $100,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetRwanda Girls Initiative: $25,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL (DBA FRIENDS OF COSTCO GUILD): $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCHILDREN'S RIGHTS INC: $21,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetA BETTER CHANCE INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCAMP KOREY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMORSELIFE FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetISRAEL CANCER RESEARCH FUND INC: $500 over 1y, 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 Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Julius Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Julius Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get 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
    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 13 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Julius Family’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