John And Marcia Goldman Foundation

The John & Marcia Goldman Foundation operates as a deeply values-driven family foundation with $335M in assets and a tightly defined mission. Founded in 1997 by John and Marcia Goldman — Bay Area natives whose philanthropic roots trace back to Levi Strauss family legacies and the Walter & Elise Haas Sr. Fund — this is multigenerational giving informed by Jewish principles of tzedakah (charitable justice) and tikkun olam (repairing the world). Understanding this cultural and familial context is essential before approaching them.

The foundation's grantmaking is organized into five areas — Youth Development, Health Research, Arts Access, Civic Engagement, and Emergency Response — but only Youth Development accepts unsolicited applications. All other areas are funded at trustee discretion, making them effectively invitation-only. First-time applicants must accept this constraint and focus exclusively on youth programming.

The board is a tightly knit family group: John Goldman serves as President (unpaid), Marcia Goldman as Secretary & Treasurer (unpaid), with their children Aaron Goldman and Jessica Goldman Foung serving as directors alongside Jessica's husband Alejandro Foung. Executive Director Amy Lyons runs day-to-day operations at a compensation of $407,867 — a seasoned professional managing a sophisticated portfolio. Communication with the foundation goes through Lyons and her team.

Organizational profile matters here. Past grantees include College Track, KIPP Bay Area, Fresh Lifelines for Youth, Ravenswood Education Foundation, and EPACENTER — all established organizations with measurable outcomes, professional staffing, and strong community roots. The foundation does not fund startups or pilot programs without a track record. A new applicant should be able to demonstrate at least three years of operations and documented impact in the Mid-Peninsula corridor.

The relationship progression is: LOI submitted (rolling basis) → staff review → board consideration at next quarterly meeting → invitation to full proposal → site visit possible → grant award. Plan for a minimum 4-6 month cycle from LOI to funding.

Total annual giving has grown consistently from $10.5M in 2019 to $13.8M in 2023, a 31% increase over five years, reflecting strong investment returns and increasing philanthropic ambition. Total assets rose from $300M (2019) to $375M (2021) before settling at $329M-$335M (2022-2024) following market volatility — the foundation remains firmly in the upper tier of mid-sized private foundations nationally.

Cash grants paid ranged from $5.3M (2021) to $7.4M (2023). The gap between 'grants paid' and 'total giving' — roughly $6.4M annually — represents multi-year grant commitments recorded as expenses in the year of board approval but disbursed over time. This multi-year commitment practice is important: grantees are often funded over 2-3 years rather than in a single lump sum.

Published grant parameters on the foundation's website indicate typical individual awards of $25,000-$150,000, positioning this funder at mid-range for Bay Area family foundations. Given total giving of $13.8M across five program areas, the Youth Development portfolio likely represents 40-60% of total grantmaking — approximately $5-8M annually directed at Mid-Peninsula youth organizations.

Revenue is almost entirely investment-driven: net investment income of $9.9M (2023), $5.0M (2022), and $16.5M (2021) explains the year-to-year variability in giving. In strong market years, giving expands; in weaker years, it contracts modestly. Contributions received ($830K-$1.5M annually) suggest the founders continue adding assets.

Historical data shows the foundation also made very large single grants: in 2014, $10.3M in cash grants were disbursed compared to $5-7M in surrounding years — suggesting occasional major one-time commitments (likely endowment gifts or capital campaigns) alongside the regular grantmaking. Organizations capable of absorbing a $250,000+ multi-year gift should make this capacity clear in their LOI budget.

The Goldman Foundation's $335M asset base places it among a group of mid-tier private foundations nationally. The following comparison uses asset-size peers from the foundation's NTEE category:

Among peer foundations of comparable asset size, the Goldman Foundation stands out for three reasons. First, it maintains a genuinely open LOI process for Youth Development — rare among family foundations of this size, which typically shift to invitation-only giving as they mature. Second, its geographic concentration in the Mid-Peninsula is exceptionally tight, creating a more competitive but also more knowable pool of applicants than national funders. Third, the 10% overhead cap is stricter than foundation norms (many peers allow 15-20%), placing an explicit burden on applicants to structure lean project budgets.

No major announcements or leadership changes were identified in public sources for 2025-2026. The foundation maintains a low public profile consistent with its family-controlled, relationship-driven approach to grantmaking.

The most significant recent strategic marker remains the 2014 Divest-Invest commitment, in which the foundation pledged to fully divest from fossil fuel enterprises and reinvest in clean energy. This environmental stance, now over a decade old, likely informs which organizations the foundation is willing to partner with — grantees whose work conflicts with environmental values may encounter resistance.

Executive Director Amy Lyons has held her role for at least five years based on compensation history in IRS filings, with compensation growing from $358,138 to $407,867 between fiscal years 2021 and 2024 — indicating stability at the staff leadership level. This continuity is positive for grant seekers, as long-tenured EDs build institutional memory that favors organizations with prior positive interactions.

The foundation's website highlights several long-term grantee relationships: EPACENTER (youth arts in East Palo Alto), Second Harvest Food Bank (food security), UCSF Kidney Project (health research), Ravenswood Education Foundation (arts educators in East Palo Alto schools), and San Francisco Symphony (music access). These partnerships suggest the foundation values depth over breadth and rewards organizations that demonstrate sustained community impact over multiple funding cycles.

Start with geography, not program. Before drafting a single word, verify your program directly serves youth and families in the Mid-Peninsula corridor — specifically southern San Mateo County (Redwood City, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Mateo, Daly City) or northern Santa Clara County (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos). Organizations serving San Francisco, the East Bay, or South Bay outside this corridor will be declined regardless of program quality.

Lead with life trajectories. The foundation's language is specific: they fund programs that 'improve life trajectories' and 'address critical service gaps' for 'harder-to-reach' youth. Frame your LOI around documented gaps in local service delivery and how your program reaches youth who lack alternatives — not generic youth enrichment.

Treat the 10% overhead cap as a design constraint, not a line item. Some organizations submit budgets with higher indirect costs and add a note explaining the cap will be met — this signals poor planning. Instead, build your project budget from scratch with the 10% cap already in place and show you can deliver strong outcomes within this constraint.

Time your LOI to the board cycle. The board meets three times annually (Spring, Summer, Winter). Aim to submit your LOI at least 6-8 weeks before each cycle to allow staff review time. A November LOI is well-positioned for Winter board consideration; a February LOI targets Spring.

Arts-integrated approaches have a clear advantage. The foundation's featured grantees — EPACENTER, Ravenswood Education Foundation, San Francisco Symphony — all involve arts as a vehicle for youth development. Organizations whose programs blend creative expression with academic support, workforce readiness, or social-emotional learning align with the foundation's demonstrated preferences.

Never cite the three-year rule as a reason to wait. If your organization received a Goldman grant within the last three years, do not contact the foundation until the moratorium has passed. Submitting early, even with an exceptional program, will be declined and may damage the relationship.