Skip to content
The Skyyler Tyyler Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Skyyler Tyyler Charitable Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$8k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Philanthropy$440kCivil Rights$316kReligion$236kRecreation & Sports$39kFood & Nutrition$33kHuman Services$7kInternational$6kHealth$3kOther$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$54k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$6,000
MILKEN COMMUNITY SCHOOL$1,000
Fight4Peace Mental Health Awareness$500
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 (FY17–20, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%IRANIAN JEWISH FEDERATION: $3k → 14%GO CAMPAIGN: $1k → 14%GO CAMPAIGN: $1k → 14%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.

50%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$542k · 8 repeat orgs$546k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
16

Total granted

$542k
$544k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+22%

Still filing today

25%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthRecreation & SportsHuman ServicesPhilanthropyReligionOther
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

  • RC
    RM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2025 · $442k
  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS
    5× · 2017–2022 · $33k
  • WC
    WEST COAST TIGERS BASKETBALL
    2× · 2019–2020 · $28k

Funded once

  • JC
    JEM CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $316k
  • NS
    NEW SPIRIT REVIVAL CENTER
    one grant, 2019 · $150k
  • NJ
    NOEL JONES MINISTRIES
    one grant, 2018 · $45k
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
Iranian Jewish Womens Organization

The Organization's primary purpose is to promote social and charitable activities designed to promote the welfare of Iranian Jewish Women of Iranian heritage in the Los Angeles, California community. The organization achieves its exempt…

International
2
Persian-American Cancer Institute

Persian-American Cancer Institute's mission is to increase the awareness and participation of Persian-Americans in the prevention, detection and treatment of cancer.All around the world, organizations similar to Persian-American Cancer…

Health
3
Mitzva Tank Nyc Inc

To help spread judiasm to jews and help them with there spirital needs

Religion
4
Chaim Maleh Foundation
Philanthropy
5
University of Judaism Foundation
—
6
Magen Avraham Fund
Philanthropy
7
Yakar Foundation Inc
—
8
The Jewish Community Foundation Charitable Fund
—
9
California Jewish Legislative Caucus Leadership Foundation

To promote social welfare by providing a forum to discuss, educate the public, and advance programs that promote topical issues of interest to the jewish community in california. the foundation will promote an understanding of cultural,…

Civil Rights
10
Minchas Zikaron Foundation
Philanthropy
11
The Afghan Jewish Foundation Inc
—
12
Tal Hashamayim Foundation
Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mitzvah Matters; the most unlike its peers is West Coast Tigers Basketball. 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

11 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. 11 of the 27 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
5/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $441,605 · OtherRM CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONJEM CENTER: $316,000 · OtherJEM CENTERNEW SPIRIT REVIVAL CENTER: $150,000 · OtherNEW SPIRIT REVIVAL CENTERNOEL JONES MINISTRIES: $45,000 · Other+14 more: $93,410 · Other+14 moreWEST COAST TIGERS BASKETBALL: $27,600 · Recreation & SportsCRESCENTA VALLEY SOCCER CLUB DBA CALIFORNIA ATHLETIC SOCCER CLUB: $1,500 · Recreation & SportsIRANIAN JEWISH FEDERATION: $3,000 · Human ServicesGo Campaign: $2,250 · Human ServicesMITZVAH MATTERS: $5,050 · ReligionMALIBU GLOBAL AWARENESS INC: $3,000 · PhilanthropyPERSIANS 4 CURE: $1,500 · HealthAmerican Heart Association Inc: $450 · HealthTOWER CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $100 · Health
Other$1,046,015Recreation & Sports$29,100Human Services$5,250Religion$5,050Philanthropy$3,000Health$2,050

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWEST COAST TIGERS BASKETBALL: $27,600 over 2y, 11% of budgetMITZVAH MATTERS: $5,050 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetMALIBU GLOBAL AWARENESS INC: $3,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetIRANIAN JEWISH FEDERATION: $3,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetGo Campaign: $2,250 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCRESCENTA VALLEY SOCCER CLUB DBA CALIFORNIA ATHLETIC SOCCER CLUB: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMILKEN COMMUNITY SCHOOL: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMAGBIT FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $450 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTOWER CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $100 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds WEST COAST TIGERS BASKETBALL ↗
  • Who funds MITZVAH MATTERS ↗
  • Who funds MALIBU GLOBAL AWARENESS INC ↗
  • Who funds IRANIAN JEWISH FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds Go Campaign ↗
  • Who funds PERSIANS 4 CURE ↗
  • Who funds CRESCENTA VALLEY SOCCER CLUB DBA CALIFORNIA ATHLETIC SOCCER CLUB ↗
  • Who funds MILKEN COMMUNITY SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds MAGBIT FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds TOWER CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Skyyler Tyyler Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Skyyler Tyyler Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 27 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Skyyler Tyyler’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