Fishman Family Foundation Inc.

Fishman Family Foundation Inc. is a small, closely-held family vehicle governed by three unpaid family directors — Dale Ellen Fishman (President, Treasurer, Clerk), Elizabeth Susan Fishman and Andrew David Fishman (Directors), with Jessica Harris Fishman appearing as a more recent director — overseeing roughly $9.2M-$10.6M in assets with zero officer compensation and no dedicated program staff. That structure signals a foundation run informally by the family itself, and the grant record confirms it: across the 13 organizations captured in available grant data (20 total grants totaling $1,507,689), 99% of every dollar — $1,493,000 — went to just three institutions: UCSF Foundation ($750,000 across 3 grants), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute ($658,000 across 3 grants), and Lahey Hospital & Medical Center ($85,000 across 2 grants). The remaining roughly $14,700 was spread across a dozen small, personal-feeling gifts to a Jewish day school, a synagogue, a ballet company, NAMI, and an aging-services nonprofit, mostly under $4,000 each.

That pattern is the real strategic signal: this is not a competitive grants program soliciting proposals from strangers. It is a family funding a small number of deep, recurring relationships with major academic medical centers — strongly suggestive of a personal or family connection to cancer treatment or research — supplemented by loyalty-driven gifts to community institutions the family is personally involved with (schools, their synagogue, local arts). The foundation's own mission statement, that it exists so its policies 'may always reflect the diverse interests of the Fishman Family,' is deliberately vague because giving tracks personal relationships rather than a published program strategy.

For organizations with no existing tie to the family, the realistic path in is indirect: relationship-building through shared board members, event sponsorships, or an introduction via one of the three standing grantee institutions, rather than a cold proposal. Applicants most likely to break through share a profile with current grantees — Bay Area or Boston-area nonprofits, Jewish community or day-school institutions, or cancer-focused medical research organizations. First-time applicants should not expect a formal LOI-to-full-proposal pipeline or site visit; with three family directors reviewing informally and the foundation's own site stating it is not accepting new applicants to preserve support for current grantees, the realistic ask is a warm introduction and a concise, personally relevant case.

Fishman Family Foundation Inc. was seeded with an $11,000,000 contribution in FY2013 (its founding year, when $0 was granted) and has paid out steadily since: $26,775 (FY2014, ramp-up year), $544,475 (FY2015), $561,760 (FY2019), $507,000 (FY2020), $535,000 (FY2021), $502,209 (FY2022), and $498,480 (FY2023). That is a remarkably flat $498K-$562K annual payout across the five most recently detailed years — the foundation is not scaling its giving, it is holding a distribution roughly in line with the IRS 5% private-foundation minimum. Total assets have drifted down from $11.0M at founding to $9.2M in FY2023, since annual net investment income ($128,000-$202,000/year) covers only about a third to 40% of what is paid out — the family is modestly drawing down principal rather than growing the corpus. The most current figure on file shows assets of $10,605,006 and income of $1,513,832, likely reflecting a later filing year not yet broken out above.

Grant size is bimodal, not a smooth curve. Across the 20 grants to 13 recipients in the available data, the average grant is $75,384 — a figure that is almost meaningless given the concentration. UCSF Foundation received $750,000 (three grants averaging $250,000 each, matching the foundation's own reported typical-grant ceiling of $250,000); Dana-Farber Cancer Institute received $658,000 (three grants averaging roughly $219,000); Lahey Hospital & Medical Center received $85,000 (two grants, roughly $42,500 each). Every other recipient received under $4,000: Temple Rodef Shalom ($3,980), San Francisco Day School ($3,000), Dana-Farber Jimmy Fund ($2,000 plus a separate $1,000 gift), The Brandeis School of San Francisco ($2,000), Smuin Ballet ($1,300 across two gifts), NAMI ($500), Food Wise ($500), Creativity Museum ($209), and Institute on Aging ($200). The foundation's own reported typical-grant statistics — median $2,000, average $56,333, range $200-$250,000 — corroborate this split between a handful of six-figure institutional commitments and many token community gifts.

Geographically, grant counts split almost evenly between California (11) and Massachusetts (9), consistent with a family dividing its philanthropy between its San Francisco address of record (schools, arts, synagogue) and the Boston area (the foundation's phone number carries a 781 area code, and both Dana-Farber and Lahey are Massachusetts institutions). There is no evidence of giving outside these two metro areas or beyond the health/Jewish-community/arts mix.

Fishman Family Foundation Inc. sits within a peer set of similarly small, roughly $10M-asset private family foundations, several of which appear to be equally low-profile, unstaffed vehicles with no public grant-making data disclosed.

Fishman stands out among this peer group as the only one with a publicly documented giving pattern and stated focus areas, likely because it maintains a website (fishman.org) while the listed peers show no website on file. If the peers follow the same IRS 5% minimum-distribution logic Fishman does, each would be paying out roughly $500K-$540K annually on assets in the $10M-$11M range — but without disclosed grant lists, it is impossible to confirm whether any of them concentrate giving as heavily as Fishman does (99% of dollars to three institutions) or spread it more broadly. Grant seekers should treat all five peers as effectively closed, relationship-driven vehicles unless direct outreach turns up different guidance, since none show the infrastructure (staff, published RFPs, portals) associated with open competitive grantmaking.

No foundation-specific news, leadership changes, or new program announcements were found for the San Francisco-registered Fishman Family Foundation Inc. (EIN 46-4326020) in 2025-2026 web searches. Search results surfaced coverage of similarly named but legally distinct entities — a Woodmere, New York foundation (EIN 47-3149659, ~$17.7M in assets, most recent Form 990 filed November 13, 2025) and a Monrovia, California foundation (EIN 95-4644459, ~$9.9M in assets) — which should not be conflated with this foundation despite the shared 'Fishman Family Foundation' name and overlapping web presence at fishman.org.

Based on this foundation's own filing history, the most recent detailed activity on record is FY2023: $498,480 in grants paid against $9,205,683 in total assets, funded by $202,070 in net investment income and just $4,500 in outside contributions — confirming the foundation is now entirely self-funded from its 2013 endowment rather than raising new money. The director roster shows continuity (Dale Ellen Fishman as President/Treasurer/Clerk across multiple filing years) with Jessica Harris Fishman appearing as a newer director, suggesting a generational addition to governance rather than a leadership change. A more current asset figure of $10,605,006 and income of $1,513,832 appears in the foundation's latest on-file snapshot, implying a subsequent filing year with a stronger investment return than FY2023, though the underlying grants-paid figure for that year was not available in the data reviewed. Grant seekers should not expect a public announcement cadence from this foundation; its activity is best tracked through annual Form 990-PF filings rather than news coverage.

This is a family-run foundation with zero paid staff, so timing and framing matter more than formal process. The foundation's public 'How to Apply' guidance (found at fishman.org, though its listed mailing address points to a Monrovia, CA location rather than this foundation's San Francisco address — grant seekers should call first to confirm which Fishman entity that specific process serves) describes no formal application form: a single proposal copy with a cover letter signed by the executive director or board president, a one-page abstract, a project description covering background/goals/evaluation/budget, an IRS tax-exempt determination letter, a current board list, and the most recent Form 990. That guidance also states proposals should arrive by September ahead of an October board meeting where directors authorize grants — if this timeline applies to the San Francisco entity as well, it means there is effectively one grant cycle per year, not a rolling process.

The single most important fact for any applicant: the foundation's own site states it 'will not be accepting requests from new applicants to effectively support current grantees.' Combined with the giving data — 99% of dollars going to just two institutions (UCSF Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) in every recent year — this indicates the foundation is not actively seeking new grantees. Organizations should not expect a cold LOI to succeed.

The highest-probability path in is relevance to the family's known priorities: cancer research or treatment (mirroring the UCSF and Dana-Farber commitments), Jewish community and day-school education, the arts, or Bay Area/Boston-area community needs — paired with a genuine personal connection, since the small discretionary gifts (Temple Rodef Shalom, San Francisco Day School, The Brandeis School of San Francisco, Smuin Ballet) all read as ties to institutions the family personally uses or attends rather than responses to competitive proposals. A common mistake would be submitting a generic proposal with no Bay Area or Boston tie-in and no reference to health/medical research or Jewish community life — this foundation's entire grant history suggests such proposals are unlikely to be read past the cover letter. Organizations without a warm introduction should focus energy on building the relationship first — board connections, event attendance, mutual grantee introductions — rather than perfecting a written proposal for a foundation that reviews requests informally, once a year, largely to renew existing commitments.