Skip to content
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group Foundation

To tackle issues that will help Silicon Valley remain the international capital of innovation, with a healthy business climate and great quality of life for its workers.

$540k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$163k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$2.3MFood & Nutrition$2.2MHousing & Shelter$1.0MRecreation & Sports$170kYouth Development$126kEducation$32kHuman Services$17kCommunity Improvement$10k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $20k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $510k
$56,144
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SV$162,739
HEALTHIER KIDS FOUNDATION$147,779
HEALTH TRUST$143,337
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SC$56,144
Boys & Girls Clubs of SV$6,667
YMCA of Silicon Valley$6,667
Santa Clara Co Office of Ed$6,667
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 (FY20–24, $17k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY: $10k → 8%YMCA of Silicon Valley: $7k → 8%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.9M · 11 repeat orgs$56k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
5

Total granted

$5.9M
$49k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+26%
+51%

Still filing today

100%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Youth DevelopmentFood & NutritionHealthHousing & ShelterRecreation & SportsHuman ServicesOther
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

  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +138%
  • HT
    HOUSING TRUST SILICON VALLEY
    6× · 2017–2022 · $1.0M · revenue +418%
  • HK
    HEALTHIER KIDS FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $889k · revenue +12%

Funded once

  • SC
    SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS NORTH SAN MATEO COUNTY
    one grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue -12%
  • SC
    SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
    one grant, 2020 · $10k
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
Boys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley

The club's mission is to enable all young people, specially those who need it most, to reach their potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

—
2
Central Coast Young Mens Christian Association

The central coast ymca embraces the values of caring, honesty, respect and responsibility, with a mission to strengthen community through programs that develop youth, support healthy living, and foster social responsibility.

—
3
Big Brothersbig Sisters Agency of Santa Cruz County Inc

Create and support mentoring matches that ignite the power and promise of youth.

—
4
Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley

To provide opportunities for youth to learn and succeed.

Youth Development
5
Community Youth Center of San Francisco

Our mission is to encourage a diverse population of high-need young people to explore their full potential through academic, career, family, and community life. Every year, CYC impacts over 8,000 San Francisco youth and their families,…

—
6
Boys & Girls Club of Santa Clara Valley

Serving the children of fillmore, piru and santa paula to inspire and enable all youth to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
7
United Way of Santa Cruz County

The mission of the united way of santa cruz county is to ignite our community to give, advocate and volunteer so that our youth succeed in school and in life, our residents are healthy and our families are financially independent.our most…

Philanthropy
8
Ymca of San Diego County

The ymca of san diego county is a nonprofit with a mission to nurture a healthy spirit, mind, and body so all can thrive while honoring our faith-based heritage.

Human Services
9
Boys & Girls Club of San Marcos

To inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as responsible and caring citizens.

—
10
Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as caring, responsible, productive citizens.

Youth Development
11
Boys and Girls Club of Tracy

The boys & girls club of tracy's mission is to enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
12
Boys & Girls Club of San Fernando Valley

Boys and girls clubs provide a safe place for youth to develop character, leadership, education, career guidance, health, art, sports and fitness while becoming responsible and caring citizens.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Health Trust; the most unlike its peers is Outride fka the Specialized Foundation. 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

14 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. 14 of the 17 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
12/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE HEALTH TRUST: $1,447,530 · HealthTHE HEALTH TRUSTHEALTHIER KIDS FOUNDATION: $889,103 · HealthHEALTHIER KIDS FOUNDATIONSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $1,583,393 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEYSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $619,134 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTYHOUSING TRUST SILICON VALLEY: $1,038,134 · Housing & ShelterHOUSING TRUST SILIC…SAN JOSE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION: $87,500 · OtherBoys & Girls Club of Santa Cruz: $26,568 · OtherSANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION: $15,141 · OtherSANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION: $10,000 · OtherMISSION COLLEGE: $6,667 · OtherOutride fka The Specialized Foundation: $63,885 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SILICON VALLEY: $16,667 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS NORTH SAN MATEO COUNTY: $15,141 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $3,634 · Youth DevelopmentCHRISTMAS IN THE PARK: $87,500 · Recreation & SportsYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SILICON VALLEY: $16,667 · Human ServicesQUAKES FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Philanthropy
Health$2,336,633Food & Nutrition$2,202,527Housing & Shelter$1,038,134Other$145,876Youth Development$99,327Recreation & Sports$87,500Human Services$16,667Philanthropy$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $1,583,393 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetTHE HEALTH TRUST: $1,447,530 over 8y, 1.1% of budgetHOUSING TRUST SILICON VALLEY: $1,038,134 over 6y, 2.2% of budgetHEALTHIER KIDS FOUNDATION: $889,103 over 8y, 2.9% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $619,134 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetCHRISTMAS IN THE PARK: $87,500 over 4y, 2.6% of budgetSAN JOSE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION: $87,500 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetOutride fka The Specialized Foundation: $63,885 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of Santa Cruz: $26,568 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SILICON VALLEY: $16,667 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SILICON VALLEY: $16,667 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS NORTH SAN MATEO COUNTY: $15,141 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetQUAKES FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $3,634 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

The David and Lucile …Kaiser Foundation Hos…Silicon Valley Commun…United Association Jo…The Family Giving TreeBoys & Girls Clubs of…Boys & Girls Clubs of…Charities Aid Foundat…American Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…Vanguard Charitable E…
The David and Lucile Packard FoundationCA17.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · United Association Journeymen & Apprentices 393 Ppf · The Family Giving Tree · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Charities Aid Foundation America · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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 Silicon Valley Leadership Group Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Silicon Valley Leadership Group Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    12report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 17 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Silicon Valley Leadership Group’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