· Private foundation
The Lisa & Steve Altman Family 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 clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k23 grants · $26k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $309k
- $250k+1 grant · $251k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION | $251,018 |
| JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION | $181,460 |
| NEUROLAB 360 | $75,000 |
| CUREBOUND | $52,500 |
| FARMLINK PROJECT | $10,000 |
| BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SAN DIEGO | $10,000 |
| MEALS ON WHEELS | $3,000 |
| STAND AMONG FRIENDS | $2,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,500 |
| DIABETES RESEARCH CONNECTION | $2,500 |
| CHILDRENS HEART FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,500 |
| SUSAN G KOMEN | $1,040 |
| TEMPLE ADAT SHALOM | $1,036 |
| LAWRENCE FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER | $1,018 |
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, $124k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 5% 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 +25% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
55 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2024, 32 since wound down; 6 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, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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
- USUC SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · $2.4M · revenue +78%
- N3NEUROLAB 3604× · 2021–2024 · $407k · revenue +479% · 77% of their budget
- CCUREBOUND7× · 2017–2024 · $217k · revenue +49%
Funded once
- SCSDSU CAMPANILLE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $135k
- KWKaren Wyckoff Rein in Sarcomaone grant, 2021 · $125k · revenue -39%
- CFCIVICA FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $75k · revenue -75%
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 san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.
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…
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.
Our mission is to accelerate scientific progress, understand the root causes of disease, and narrow the gap between discoveries and impact on patients.
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…
Sfn's mission is to: 1. advance the understanding of the brain and the nervous system by bringing together scientists of all segments of neuroscience, by facilitating the integration of research directed at all levels of biological…
The jonsson cancer center foundation is the single most important vehicle for raising private funds for cancer research at ucla and plays a key role in advancing cancer treatments and care. please see schedule o for additional information.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
To help conquer cancer and other diseases through the application of biostatistical principles and innovative data management methods.
City of Hope's mission is to make hope a reality for all touched by cancer and diabetes. PLEASE SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A CONTINUATION OF OUR MISSION
The sarnoff cardiovascular research foundation is dedicated to cultivating the next generation of physician-leaders in cardiovascular medicine by funding and supporting medical students and physicians engaged in transformative research.
Asco association promotes the common business interests of its members by: (1) advocating for policies that improve the quality of cancer care; (2) maintaining the highest standards of oncology medical care through programs supporting…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is March of Dimes Inc and the most unlike its peers is Foundation for Climate Restoration Inc. 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 31 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 5% 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.
73 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. 73 of the 139 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 UC SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEUROLAB 360 ↗
- Who funds CUREBOUND ↗
- Who funds Karen Wyckoff Rein in Sarcoma ↗
- Who funds CIVICA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds SOF SUPPORT INC ↗
- Who funds THEATER & ARTS FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY DBA LA JOLLA PLAYHOUSE ↗
- Who funds DIABETES RESEARCH CONNECTION ↗
- Who funds THE RAPE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OLD GLOBE THEATRE ↗
- Who funds STAND AMONG FRIENDS INC ↗
- Who funds IMMUNOTHERAPY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HEART CARE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds THE MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds 1 SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds FARMLINK PROJECT ↗
- Who funds San Diego Opera Association ↗
- Who funds HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE SOCIETY OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds LAS PATRONAS ↗
- Who funds LAWRENCE FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ↗
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: Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego · The San Diego Foundation · Sempra Foundation · Rancho Santa Fe Foundation · The Conrad Prebys Foundation · Kerr Family Foundation · Allison and Robert Price Family Foundation · Walter J & Betty C Zable Foundation · The Parker Foundation · David C Copley Foundation · Farrell Family Foundation · The Woody Charitable 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 Lisa & Steve Altman Family 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.
- Employment Options Inc — 100% of income from government
- Academy Prep Center of Tampa Inc — 3% 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 Lisa & Steve Altman Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Lisa & Steve Altman Family 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.