· Private foundation
Anita and Santosh Mehra 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k10 grants · $20k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $158k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| RAPHAEL HOUSE | $28,000 |
| HUMANE SOCIETY OF HURON V | $25,000 |
| OLYMPIC CLUB FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| SAFE HOUSE CENTER | $20,000 |
| MAI FAMILY SERVICES | $20,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | $20,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | $20,000 |
| THE HINDU TEMPLE | $5,000 |
| CHILDREN OF SHELTERS | $5,000 |
| OLYMPIC CLUB FOUNDATION | $3,000 |
| WENDER WEIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN | $2,000 |
| SAN FRANCISCO SYMPHONY | $1,500 |
| SCHOOLS OF SACRED HEART | $1,475 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | $1,230 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
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 (FY24–25, $53k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 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 +39% since the first grant, against -1% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 4 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, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k 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
- UOUniversity of Michigan9× · 2017–2025 · $265k · revenue +202% · 39% of their budget
- OCOLYMPIC CLUB FOUNDATION7× · 2018–2025 · $236k · revenue +39%
- COChildren of Shelters5× · 2021–2025 · $105k · revenue +46%
Funded once
- TPTIPPING POINT COMMUNITYone grant, 2019 · $25k · revenue -1%
- DVDHANPATMAL VIRMANI EDUCATION TRUSTone grant, 2020 · $16k
- SJSAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2024 · $8k
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 bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
The bar association of san francisco champions equal access to justice and promotes humanity, excellence, and diversity in the legal profession. we provide legal services to disadvantaged and underserved individuals in san francisco. we…
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
The national forest foundation (nff), chartered by congress, turns america's love of nature into meaningful action for 193-million acre national forest system through on the ground program work and grant making activities, and accepts and…
The foundation's mission is to improve the oral health of all californians by supporting the dental profession and its efforts to meet community needs.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
To lead, serve and collaborate to mobilize enduring philanthropy for a better arizona.
Our mission is to invest in and accelerate the development of the most promising future leaders in biomedical research with global impact.
Marin humane transforms lives through exceptional animal care, humane education, and advocacy. every day, marin humane inspires compassion and positive relationships between people and animals.
Eastern national promotes the public's understanding and support of america's national parks and other public trust partners by providing quality educational experiences, products and services.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bay Area Discovery Museum and the most unlike its peers is Wender Weis Foundation for Children. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 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. 17 of the 26 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 University of Michigan ↗
- Who funds OLYMPIC CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Children of Shelters ↗
- Who funds MAI FAMILY SERVICES SASHITAL ↗
- Who funds RAPHAEL HOUSE OF SAN FRANCISCO INC ↗
- Who funds TIPPING POINT COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds RUSSIAN HILL SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds BREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds DESAI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WENDER WEIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO SYMPHONY ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN NURSES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA DISCOVERY MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds LEGACY LAND CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds GUIDING EYES FOR THE BLIND INC ↗
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: American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Anita and Santosh Mehra 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Anita and Santosh Mehra Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Anita and Santosh Mehra Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.