· Private foundation
The Marcus & Millichap Company 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 $10k19 grants · $78k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $135k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $275k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| IOCC - INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHARITIES | $125,000 |
| NEW CALIFORNIA COALITION FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| BRIDGE HOUSING | $50,000 |
| PENSION REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| BERKELEY REAL ESTATE FORUM | $30,000 |
| TEXAS ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA | $10,000 |
| YIMBY ACTION | $10,000 |
| ALL FIVE SCHOOL | $10,000 |
| MAKE A WISH FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| EL RIO HEALTH CENTER | $10,000 |
| LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL | $10,000 |
| HILLSBOROUGH AUXILIARY TO PFS | $10,000 |
| SAN CARLOS EDUCATION FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL WILDCATS FOUNDATION | $7,000 |
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 (FY17–22, $89k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 64% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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 +33% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.
64 repeat relationships — 27 still active in FY2024, 37 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, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $42k 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
- BHBRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION8× · 2017–2024 · $325k · revenue +232%
- TUTHE ULI FOUNDATION5× · 2017–2024 · $163k · revenue +97%
- TOTexas Oncology Foundation Inc4× · 2021–2024 · $135k · revenue +108%
Funded once
- GHGLOBAL HERITAGE FUNDone grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue -98%
WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INCgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue +34%- PFPATHWAYS FOR KIDS CO PETER DWARESone grant, 2020 · $75k · revenue -64% · 46% of their budget
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 organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
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 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 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…
Ca fwd drives action to identify solutions that can be taken to scale to meet the challenges the state is facing. the organization is driven by the belief that regional solutions across the state will help ensure economic, environmental,…
The ucla foundation is the giving, receiving, and investing arm of the ucla campus. the foundation enables private donors to help build, sustain and advance one of the world's finest academic and research institutions. private philanthropy…
To benefit the university of california santa cruz.
The Sacramento Region Community Foundation leads, serves, and inspires enduring philanthropy for a just and vibrant Sacramento region.
Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) connects people, ideas and resources to ensure equity and opportunity for all.
The league of california community foundations promotes and strengthens community foundations in california. through collaboration and shared learning among member foundations and building partnerships with private and public entities, we…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of Greater Bay Area and the most unlike its peers is Project Reap. 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 29 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) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
93 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 93 of the 146 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 INT'L ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHARITIES INC ↗
- Who funds BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds THE ULI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Texas Oncology Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds Berkeley Real Estate Forum ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL HERITAGE FUND ↗
- Who funds WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds HOUSING TRUST SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds PATHWAYS FOR KIDS CO PETER DWARES ↗
- Who funds NEW CALIFORNIA COALITION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
- Who funds THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Junior Achievement of Northern California ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CITY YEAR INC ↗
- Who funds LOS GATOS EDUCATION FOUNDATION DBA ONE COMMUNITY LG ↗
- Who funds ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds SAN CARLOS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SAN RAMON VALLEY EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MISSION CITY COMMUNITY FUND ↗
- Who funds CANCER CAREPOINT INC ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA COUNCIL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE SHARKS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BURLINGAME COMMUNITY FOR EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF GREATER BAY AREA ↗
- Who funds PROJECT REAP ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
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 Sobrato Family Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Bright Funds Foundation · Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation · The Intuit Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Salesforce Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Agilent Technologies 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 Marcus & Millichap Company 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.
- City Year Inc — 11% of income from government
- Int'l Orthodox Christian Charities Inc — 7% of income from government
- Wounded Warrior Project 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 Marcus & Millichap Company Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Marcus & Millichap Company 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.