Skip to content

· Private foundation

Doximity Foundation

To fund, through micro grants, health care projects that support the underserved in the united states and around the world.

$381k
Granted FY2024still arriving
220
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

International$608kHealth$406k
02FY2024 · 220 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,780
Median grant
2
States reached
$606k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$6,335
Individual grant recipient$5,116
Individual grant recipient$4,175
Individual grant recipient$4,166
Individual grant recipient$3,934
Individual grant recipient$3,926
Individual grant recipient$3,638
Individual grant recipient$3,296
Individual grant recipient$3,288
Individual grant recipient$3,285
Individual grant recipient$3,074
Individual grant recipient$3,002
Individual grant recipient$2,971
Individual grant recipient$2,924
Individual grant recipient$2,867
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 52% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%MAVEN PROJECT: $20k → 10%CARE USA: $20k → 13%AMERICAN MEDICAL WOMEN ASSOCIATION: $2k → 15%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.
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 60% of Doximity Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 98% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 39%.

Doximity Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

21%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$209k · 51 repeat orgs$805k to everyone else

51 repeat relationships: 37 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 171 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

51
237

Total granted

$209k
$487k

Still filing today

0%
1%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 17% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $318k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
HealthInternationalOther
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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2022–2023 · $9k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2022–2024 · $8k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2022–2024 · $8k

Funded once

  • COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue -6%
  • TM
    THE MAVEN PROJECT
    one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +14%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $6k
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
Islamic Medical Association of North America

Imana fosters health promotion, disease prevention, and health maintenance in communities around the world through direct patient care, health programs, and advocacy.

Public Safety & Disaster
2
Abim Foundation

See schedule o.as an operating charity, the abim foundation develops and implements projects in support of our mission to advance the core values of medical professionalism as a force to improve the quality of health care.

Health
3
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine

The society for maternal-fetal medicine supports the clinical practice of maternal-fetal medicine by providing education, promoting research, and engaging in advocacy to optimize the health of high-risk pregnant women and their babies.

Health
4
National Medical Association

To advance the art and science of medicine for people of african descent through education, advocacy, and health policy to promote health and wellness, eliminate health disparities and sustain physician viability.

Health
5
Maine Medical Association

To support maine physicians, advance the quality of medicine in maine, and promote the health of all maine people.

—
6
Mali Health Organizing Project Inc

Mali Health improves maternal and child health by supporting women, communities, and the community health system to develop local solutions that ensure every mother and child has access to quality primary care. We aim to end preventable…

Community Improvement
7
Association of American Medical Colleges

Aamc leads & serves the academic medicine community to improve the health of people everywhere.

Education
8
San Antonio Medical Foundation

The mission of the san antonio medical foundation is to improvehealth care, advance biomedical science, and enhance communitywell-being by providing leadership & active stewardship of our landand other assets.

Health
9
Foundation for Smfm

The foundation for smfm is a 501(c)(3) non-profit created to promote the career development of young investigators whose research will advance the field of maternal-fetal medicine (mfm) and improve the care of individuals with high-risk…

Education
10
National Association of Health Services Executives

Promoting the advancement of black healthcare professionals.

Health
11
Minnesota Medical Association

To be the leading voice of medicine to make minnesota the healthiest state and the best place to practice.

—
12
The Administrators in Medicine Foundation
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Medical Womens Associationinc; the most unlike its peers is Wabi Sabi Health Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

8 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. 8 of the 459 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

+198 more: $611,548 · Other+198 moreCOOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC: $20,000 · InternationalTHE MAVEN PROJECT: $20,000 · Health
Other$611,548International$20,000Health$20,000

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MAVEN PROJECT: $20,000 over 1y, 0.6% 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.

  • Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE MAVEN PROJECT ↗

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.

American Online Giving Foundation IncDE6.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    0get no government money at all
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Doximity Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Doximity 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.

    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 459 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Doximity’s filings →

    More from the funding graph