· Private foundation
The Three Sisters 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k10 grants · $44k
- $10k–50k19 grants · $263k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS | $30,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES | $30,000 |
| JEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF GREATER LOS ANGELES | $20,000 |
| THE PEOPLE CONCERN | $20,000 |
| EVERYCHILD FOUNDATION | $18,000 |
| NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL - LOS ANGELES REG | $15,000 |
| LIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| OPEN PATHS COUNSELING CENTER | $10,000 |
| PEN AMERICAN CENTER INC | $10,000 |
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC | $10,000 |
| PUBLIC MEDIA GROUP OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA | $10,000 |
| LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES | $10,000 |
| TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND | $10,000 |
| NEW DIRECTIONS INC | $10,000 |
| KCRW FOUNDATION INC | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $391k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
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 +27% since the first grant, against -10% for the ones you funded once.
28 repeat relationships — 19 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k 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
PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES9× · 2017–2025 · $265k · revenue +92%- IMINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS8× · 2017–2025 · $258k · revenue +82%
- TPTHE PEOPLE CONCERN9× · 2017–2025 · $180k · revenue +696%
Funded once
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Incgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +132%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INCone grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -10%
THE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER INCone grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue -22%
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 is a non-partisan, membership based speakers' forum that connects business leaders, community members, and engaged individuals with shared interest in local, national, and global affairs. it provides an open and accessible…
The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and…
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 distribute public affairs and other educational information in order to create an electronic bridge between californians and their public officials, and, in the process educate a new generation of voting citizens and civic leaders who…
To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.
Latino Media Collaborative's mission is to leverage the power of Latino and community news media to impact policy, change narratives, and promote civic engagement, while also supporting advancement of the sector through capacity building,…
Public counsel is a nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to advancing civil rights and racial and economic justice, as well as to amplifying the power of our clients through comprehensive legal advocacy. (see sch o for…
To eliminate disparities in health care access and outcomes by providing superior quality health and human services through an integrated world-class delivery system for latino, multi-ethnic underserved communities in southern california.
To improve the quality of life for the diverse communities we serve providing affordable and comprehensive healthcare and education in a welcoming multi-cultural environment.
Public health institute generates and promotes research, leadership and partnerships to build capacity for strong public health policy, programs, systems and practices.
To improve our communities' sexual and reproductive health outcomes through health care, education, and advocacy.
Chamber's mission: design and advance opportunities and solutions for a thriving regional economy that are inclusive and globally competitive. 1) advocacy - be a bold advocate for business as a driver of a strong economy that enables…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Partners 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.
Your grantees are a median of 39 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% 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.
40 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. 40 of the 43 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 JEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF GREATER LA ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS ↗
- Who funds THE PEOPLE CONCERN ↗
- Who funds The Everychild Foundation ↗
- Who funds NEW DIRECTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds LIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds EAST LA COMMUNITY CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds OPEN PATHS COUNSELING CENTER ↗
- Who funds VISTA DEL MAR CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ↗
- Who funds THE LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds PEN AMERICAN CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Los Angeles ↗
- Who funds SPREAD THE VOTE INC ↗
- Who funds Civic Nation ↗
- Who funds FAIRVOTE ↗
- Who funds VENICE FAMILY CLINIC ↗
- Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds WHEN WE ALL VOTE ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds HEAL THE BAY ↗
- Who funds KCRW FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC MEDIA GROUP OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds HOLA COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds THE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds WESTSIDE FAMILY HEALTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds HISPANIC FEDERATION INC ↗
- Who funds PERFORMING ARTS CENTER OF LOS ANGELES 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: California Community Foundation · The Ahmanson Foundation · Weingart Foundation · The California Wellness Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust
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 Three Sisters 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.
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% 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.