Loading…
· Private foundation
THE LARRY L HILLBLOM FOUNDATION INC
This foundation does not accept unsolicited requests — it funds preselected organizations.
$6.9M
Granted FY2024
47
Grants
2
Communities
$1.9M
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 79% of THE LARRY L HILLBLOM FOUNDATION INC’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2020
ministriesfoodhope
2021
food
2022
food
2023
sheriff's
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 47 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $14k
- $10k–50k27 grants · $491k
- $50k–250k11 grants · $1.1M
- $250k+6 grants · $5.2M
$24,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$153M
Total assets
Largest grants
- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO$1,860,000
- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO$1,545,000
- SALK INSTITUTE$600,000
- BUCK INSTITUTE$545,000
- STANFORD UNIVERSITY$370,000
- SPIRIT HORSE CONNECTIONS$277,802
- SRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE$190,000
- GLADSTONE RESEARCH INSTITUTE$170,000
- CITY OF HOPE$150,000
- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES$140,000
- SONOMA VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$95,000
- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE$75,000
- COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SONOMA COUNTY$70,000
- CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER$70,000
- UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA$70,000
02The need
04
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $67k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15% — the area typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
80%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$26M · 56 repeat orgs$6.3M to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +74% since the first grant, against +47% for the ones you funded once.
56 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2024, 42 since wound down; 33 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
56
31
Total granted
$26M
$589k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+74%
+47%
Still filing today
41%
48%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 16% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.7M went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
EducationHealthPhilanthropyScience & TechReligionHuman ServicesOther
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
- TSTHE SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES4× · 2020–2023 · $2.1M · revenue +13%
- BIBUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON AGING4× · 2020–2023 · $1.1M · revenue +76%
CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER5× · 2020–2024 · $410k · revenue +20%
Funded once
- TJTHE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTESgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $120k · revenue +41%
- RUREGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIF UCSF FRESNOone grant, 2022 · $100k
- SCSJV CLEAN ENERGY ORGANIZATIONone grant, 2020 · $80k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
University of California
To raise and manage private funds to support uci's broader mission of excellence in teaching, research and public service.
Education
2
San Diego Biomedical Research Institute
The SDBRI mission is to find new ways to predict and prevent cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disease, neurological disorders and HIV infection, and to accelerate medical advances that maintain health and improve quality of life.
Health
3
CalMatters
To improve Californias democracy by making its government more transparent and accountable and giving Californians the information they need to understand and engage with that government.
Civil Rights
4
California Academy of Sciences
To regenerate the natural world through science, learning, and collaboration
Arts & Culture
5
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
—
6
Southern California Institute
The southern california institute of architecture is a fully accredited school.
Education
7
San Francisco State University
To provide private financial support to assist the university in meeting its educational mission.
Education
8
Pitzer College
Pitzer College is an educational institution focusing on undergraduate education.
Education
9
California State University Dominguez
The organization's primary purpose is to assist csu, dominguez hills in various activities.
—
10
Sonoma Mountain Institute
Environment
11
Southern California Eye Institute
To reduce the burden of eye disease and blinding conditions in children and aging-populations in and surrounding cities of Los Angeles County through patient care, research and education.
Education
12
Southern California Public Radio
Noncommercial educational public radio production and broadcasting.
Arts & Culture
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Jude Children's Research Hospital and the most unlike its peers is Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. 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.
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
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 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
Closures · last 5 years
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
orgs you fund
0.0%0/55
the rest of the field
12%
11,327/91,729
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.
05the grantee network
50 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
16
Early backer (in before they grew)
49/50
Grantees still filing
39/50
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$25,690,675Science & Tech$3,348,055Social Science$1,087,562Education$908,406Health$818,000Philanthropy$223,000Religion$74,824
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 SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES ↗
- Who funds J CRAIG VENTER INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds BUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON AGING ↗
- Who funds CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SONOMA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds 10000 DEGREES ↗
- Who funds THE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES ↗
- Who funds SONOMA VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
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.
Marin Community FoundationCA17.7× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Marin Community Foundation · Sonoma County Community Foundation · Sonoma County Vintners Foundation · McNabb Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc
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 organisation THE LARRY L HILLBLOM FOUNDATION INC 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.
2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: DALA MONTHLY.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
medium risk
3 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 874425706 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on DALA MONTHLY, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
- WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 46% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to The Larry L Hillblom Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Larry L Hillblom Foundation Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines