· Private foundation
The Placzek 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 placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k27 grants · $60k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $27k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UCSF - Hematology Pulmunology Palliative Care Departments | $16,000 |
| Acalanes High School Auto Shop | $11,000 |
| OPU Organization for Aid to Refugees | $6,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $4,500 |
| Acalanes High School Auto Shop | $4,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $4,000 |
| Jewish Community of Brno | $3,300 |
| ALS Therapy Dev Institute | $3,000 |
| Lindsay Wildlife Experience | $3,000 |
| Young Musicians Choral Orchestra | $3,000 |
| Olympic Valley Fire Fighters Association | $3,000 |
| Mehrin Moravian Jewish Museum | $2,200 |
| Regional Parks Foundation | $2,000 |
| Acalanes High School Performing Arts | $2,000 |
| World Central Kitchen | $2,000 |
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 US giving — 82% of grant dollars ($364k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 18% that went abroad ($81k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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
Beyond the US — 18% of all-years giving ($81k)
1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +21% for the ones you funded once.
70 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2024, 47 since wound down; 5 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, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
- LPLafayette Partners in Education6× · 2019–2024 · $25k · revenue +78%
ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK6× · 2017–2024 · $6k · revenue +87%- BPBerkeley Public Schools Fund3× · 2022–2024 · $6k · revenue +25%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $22k
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $21k · revenue -21%- PPPAUL PROJECTSone grant, 2022 · $17k
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 academy is a renowned scientific and educational institution with a mission to regenerate the natural world through science, learning, and collaboration. based in san francisco's golden gate park, it is home to a world-class aquarium,…
See schedule osfmoma believes the art of our time is vital and shares it with passion and purpose, and that art and the creative process can open minds and help build a better world. for that reason, we assemble unparalleled collections,…
Through management of oakland zoo, the conservation society of california deepens connection with animals, saves wildlife, and inspires champions for the natural world.
To ensure coast redwood forests in the santa cruz mountains thrive for generations to come. since 1900, sempervirens has protected more than 36,000 acres. learn more about our mission, vision, and strategic plan through 2030 at:…
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
Create and publish educational materials, conduct professional development, promote awareness, and sponsor research on the spectacular biological diversity of the State of CA.
Save the redwoods league protects and restores redwood forests and connects people with their peace and beauty so these wonders of the natural world flourish.
The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is California State Parks Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 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 41 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% 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.
38 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. 38 of the 103 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 Lafayette Partners in Education ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Transports to Truth Inc ↗
- Who funds KQED INC ↗
- Who funds REGIONAL PARKS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds LINDSAY WILDLIFE MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds Berkeley Public Schools Fund ↗
- Who funds YOUNG MUSICIANS CHORAL ORCHESTRA ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL RESCUE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds ST MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds THE DAWN REDWOODS CHARITABLE TRUST ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
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: East Bay Community Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Ibm International Foundation · Esb Charitable Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
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 Placzek 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.
- World Salmon Council — 55% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- American Whitewater — 5% 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.