Skip to content
William H Cilker Family Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

William H Cilker Family Foundation

William H.

$405k
Granted FY2019
15
Grants FY2019
4
States reached
$43k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

98% of William H Cilker Family Foundation’s FY2021 grant dollars went to Silicon Valley Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2021 names 14 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year William H Cilker Family Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 15 organizations, $187k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

17
’17
14
’18
15
’19
14
’21

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2021.

Community Improvement$7.4MHealth$362kHuman Services$69kReligion$64kFood & Nutrition$60kEducation$47kInternational$38kArts & Culture$24kOther$0
02FY2019 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 15 grants below total $186,900, the rows itemized in this filing. The $404,700 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $217,800 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k10 grants · $66k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $121k
$7,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CANCER CAREPOINT INC$42,500
FACIAL PAIN RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC$40,000
WEST VALLEY MISSION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION$13,550
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF LOS GATOS$12,700
ALMADEN VALLEY WOMAN'S CLUB$12,500
STANDUP FOR KIDS$9,400
SACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE$7,750
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK OF SANTA CLARA & SAN MATEO COUNTIES$7,000
ROTAPLAST INTERNATIONAL INC$6,500
ROTACARE BAY AREA INC$6,500
FAMILY GIVING TREE$6,000
NAPILI KAI FOUNDATION$6,000
NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE$5,500
PARKINSON'S INSTITUTE$5,500
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC$5,500
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 (FY18–21, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence: $14k → 8%Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence: $6k → 8%NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: $6k → 8%SACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE: $8k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
NY
CA
DC
HI
GA
TX
FL
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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$639k · 14 repeat orgs$107k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2019, 3 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
6

Total granted

$639k
$44k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+73%
+107%

Still filing today

79%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’21
HealthInternationalFood & NutritionArts & CultureHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • CC
    CANCER CAREPOINT INC
    4× · 2017–2021 · $157k · revenue +2%
  • FP
    FACIAL PAIN RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2017–2021 · $141k · revenue +38%
  • WV
    WEST VALLEY MISSION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION
    3× · 2017–2019 · $47k · revenue +93%

Funded once

  • WP
    WESTHOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • HF
    HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INTERNATIONAL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $8k · revenue +48%
  • The Houston Food Bankgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $8k · revenue +107%
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
Food Forward Inc

Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.

Food & Nutrition
2
Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County

Second harvest food bank's mission is to end hunger and malnutrition by educating and involving the community.

Food & Nutrition
3
San Francisco Food Bank

To end hunger in san francisco and marin counties by soliciting food donations nationally, distributing this food to qualifying public service agencies and neighborhood pantries, advocating for improved government food programs, and…

—
4
Extrafood

Food Rescue - The Organization rescues excess fresh food from Bay Area businesses, schools and non-profits and immediately delivers the food to safety net partners - such as senior housing centers, after-school programs, and homeless…

Food & Nutrition
5
Feeding San Diego

On a mission to connect every person facing hunger with nutritious meals by maximizing food rescue. through direct service and community partnerships, feeding san diego provides more than 26 million meals each year to children, families,…

Food & Nutrition
6
Foodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc

To end hunger and transform the health of our community by providing nourishment to those in need by acquiring and distributing safe nutritious food via local agencies and by providing education to solve hunger and nutritional problems in…

Food & Nutrition
7
Central California Food Bank

Ccfb is dedicated to ending hunger, working with over 200 partner agencies to provide food to those experiencing hunger. our mission: transforming lives together, in the passionate pursuit to end hunger in central ca - one meal, one…

Food & Nutrition
8
San Francisco Public Press

The mission of the San Francisco Public Press is to enrich civic life by publishing investigative and solutions journalism that engages diverse audiences and promotes public accountability. The San Francisco Public Press…

Education
9
United Food Bank

United Food Bank unites communities to alleviate hunger.

Food & Nutrition
10
Sacramento Food Bank & Family Services

Dedicated to assisting those in need by alleviating their immediate pain and problems and moving them toward self-sufficiency and financial independence.

—
11
Sacramento Region Community Foundation

The Sacramento Region Community Foundation leads, serves, and inspires enduring philanthropy for a just and vibrant Sacramento region.

Philanthropy
12
The San Diego Foundation

The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Family Giving Tree; the most unlike its peers is Facial Pain Research Foundation Inc. 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

24 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. 24 of the 30 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/24
Grantees still filing
20/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: $7,374,833 · PhilanthropySilicon Valley Community Foundation+1 more: $7,000 · PhilanthropyCANCER CAREPOINT INC: $157,000 · HealthFACIAL PAIN RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $141,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $11,000 · Health+1 more: $5,500 · HealthPRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF LOS GATOS: $46,900 · OtherREDWOOD RAMP CAMP INC: $33,300 · OtherROTACARE BAY AREA INC: $31,450 · OtherTHE FAMILY GIVING TREE: $30,750 · OtherPARKINSON'S INSTITUTE AND CLINICAL CENTER: $16,500 · OtherWESTHOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: $10,000 · OtherStandUp for Kids: $9,400 · OtherHISTORY SAN JOSE: $14,500 · OtherGuadalupe River Park Conservancy: $17,600 · OtherALMADEN VALLEY WOMANS CLUB: $12,500 · Other+6 more: $32,500 · OtherWEST VALLEY MISSION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $46,550 · Community ImprovementROTAPLAST INTERNATIONAL INC: $31,450 · InternationalHABITAT FOR HUMANITY INTERNATIONAL INC: $8,000 · InternationalFORWARD EDGE INTERNATIONAL: $7,000 · InternationalSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $35,500 · Food & NutritionMAUI FOOD BANK INC: $7,500 · Food & NutritionNEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: $25,000 · Human ServicesSACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE: $7,750 · Human Services
Philanthropy$7,381,833Health$314,500Other$255,400Community Improvement$46,550International$46,450Food & Nutrition$43,000Human Services$32,750

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 budgetSilicon Valley Community Foundation: $7,374,833 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCANCER CAREPOINT INC: $157,000 over 4y, 2.6% of budgetFACIAL PAIN RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $141,000 over 4y, 6.4% of budgetWEST VALLEY MISSION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $46,550 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $35,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetROTACARE BAY AREA INC: $31,450 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetROTAPLAST INTERNATIONAL INC: $31,450 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetTHE FAMILY GIVING TREE: $30,750 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetNEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: $25,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetGuadalupe River Park Conservancy: $17,600 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetALMADEN VALLEY WOMANS CLUB: $12,500 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $11,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetStandUp for Kids: $9,400 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY INTERNATIONAL INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Houston Food Bank: $8,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE: $7,750 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMAUI FOOD BANK INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREDWOOD CREDIT UNION COMMUNITY FUND INC: $7,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFORWARD EDGE INTERNATIONAL: $7,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNAPILI KAI FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $5,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVIA REHABILITATION SERVICES INC: $5,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDIXON FAMILY SERVICES: $5,500 over 1y, 2.9% 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.

Silicon Valley Commun…Kieve FoundationFarrington Historical…American Endowment Fo…Rotary Club of San Jo…Heffernan Group Found…Kaiser Foundation Hos…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…The Blackbaud Giving …Jpmorgan Chase Founda…Morgan Stanley Global…
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA19.7× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Kieve Foundation · Farrington Historical Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Rotary Club of San Jose Foundation · Heffernan Group Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc

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 William H Cilker Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from William H Cilker Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    10report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 30 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2022) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2019, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on William H Cilker Family’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