Skip to content

· Private foundation

Medhat F Sami Foundation Inc

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.

$78k
Granted FY2021
7
Grants FY2021
5
States reached
$25k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

66% of Medhat F Sami Foundation Inc’s FY2025 grant dollars went to The Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2021, the last year Medhat F Sami Foundation Inc named its own grantees at scale: 6 organizations, $78k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

1
’20
6
’21
4
’22
4
’23
4
’24
3
’25

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, FY2020 to 2025.

Health$315kInternational$177kCommunity Improvement$150kEducation$99kReligion$11k
02FY2021 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2021

  • Under $10k5 grants · $33k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
$7,500
Median grant
5
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION$25,000
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES INC$20,000
HELLEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL$7,500
THE CLEAR FUND DBA GIVEWELL$7,500
THE AGAINST MALARIA FOUNDATION US$7,500
THE SHEPHERD AND MOTHER OF LIGHT FO$5,000
HANDS ALONG THE NILE DEVELOPMENT SE$5,000
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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 50% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%MASS DESIGN GROUP: $25k → 16%CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION: $75k → 10%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $99k → 8%THE CLEAR FUND DBA GIVEWELL: $62k → 10%CARE 4 NEEDY COPTS: $10k → 6%TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES INC: $70k → 17%THE GENESIS PROJECT: $25k → 15%THE AGAINST MALARIA FOUNDATION US: $8k → 15%HANDS ALONG THE NILE DEVELOPMENT SE: $10k → 9%CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION: $25k → 10%THE CLEAR FUND DBA GIVEWELL: $8k → 10%CARE 4 NEEDY COPTS: $8k → 6%TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES INC: $50k → 17%THE GENESIS PROJECT: $20k → 15%HANDS ALONG THE NILE DEVELOPMENT SE: $10k → 9%CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION: $25k → 10%CARE 4 NEEDY COPTS: $6k → 6%TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES INC: $20k → 17%HANDS ALONG THE NILE DEVELOPMENT SE: $10k → 9%CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION: $25k → 10%THE SHEPHERD AND MOTHER OF LIGHT FO: $6k → 6%TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES INC: $10k → 17%HANDS ALONG THE NILE DEVELOPMENT SE: $8k → 9%CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION: $25k → 10%THE SHEPHERD AND MOTHER OF LIGHT FO: $5k → 6%BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR RESEARCH FOUNDAT: $50k → 17%HANDS ALONG THE NILE DEVELOPMENT SE: $5k → 9%CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION: $25k → 10%BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR RESEARCH FOUNDAT: $20k → 17%HELLEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL: $8k → 17%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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$613k · 8 repeat orgs$40k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +31% since the first grant, against +29% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2021, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call). Read against FY2021, 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

8
3

Total granted

$613k
$40k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
+29%

Still filing today

63%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthInternationalPhilanthropyOther
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

  • CA
    CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $200k · revenue +31%
  • TA
    TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES INC
    4× · 2021–2025 · $150k · revenue +2%
  • TC
    THE CLEAR FUND
    2× · 2021–2024 · $70k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • MASS DESIGN GROUP LTD
    one grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue -11%
  • TA
    The Against Malaria Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue +29%
  • HK
    HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONALgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue +35%
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
Target Als Foundation Inc

Our mission is to break down barriers to als research to find effective treatments. by uniting academia, the pharma and biotech industry, government, venture capital, related nonprofits, and the als community, we aim to overcome the…

Education
2
Drugs & Diagnostics for Tropical Disease

Deliver new drugs and new diagnostics for diseases that affect predominantly economically vulnerable populations.

Health
3
Global Alliance for Tb Drug Development Inc

Tb alliance is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the discovery, development and delivery of better, faster-acting and affordable tuberculosis drugs that are available to those who need them.

Health
4
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Inc

To create and lead alliances and public-private partnerships that advance breakthrough biomedical discoveries and improve the quality of people's lives

Health
5
Fund for the Global Fund

To encourage individuals, corporations, foundations and donor governments to support the global fund, an international foundation focused on ending three of the world's most deadly infectious diseases.

Human Services
6
Cure Rare Disease Inc

Our mission is to enable and finance the development of life-saving genetic medicines for ultra-rare patient populations previously deemed too rare to treat. to realize this, our unique ecosystems facilitates collaboration between…

Health
7
Angiogenesis Foundation Inc

To improve global health by advancing angiogenesis-based medicine, diet, and lifestyle.

Health
8
Institute for Life Changing Medicines Inc

The organization's mission is to develop therapies for diseases that for-profit, commercial developers deem too rare, and therefore not commercially viable to develop, and to provide access to these therapies to all patients in need.

Health
9
Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative North America Inc

The mission of dndi north america is to contribute to the achievement of dndi's global objectives, in particular to strenghten and expand dndi's scientific, policy advocacy, fundraising, and communications efforts in north america by (a)…

Health
10
Access to Advanced Health Institute

Aahi is a nonprofit biotech research institute, bringing together the best experts, technologies, and platforms to create accessible, high-quality products and solutions for harnessing the immune system to alleviate disease.

Health
11
Malaria Consortium Us Inc

To improve lives in africa and asia through sustainable, evidence-based programs that combat targeted diseases, and promote child and maternal health.

Health
12
Global Down Syndrome Foundation

To significantly improve the lives of people with down syndrome through research, medical care, education and advocacy. an important part of this mission is to support the global affiliate organizations that we helped establish and…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Clear Fund; the most unlike its peers is The Genesis Project 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

9 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. 9 of the 12 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES INC: $150,000 · OtherTRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES INCBRAIN AND BEHAVIOR RESEARCH FOUNDAT: $70,000 · OtherBRAIN AND BEHAVIOR RESEARCH FOUNDATCARE 4 NEEDY COPTS: $24,000 · OtherCARE 4 NEEDY COPTSTHE SHEPHERD AND MOTHER OF LIGHT FO: $11,000 · OtherCHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION: $200,000 · HealthCHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATIONTHE GENESIS PROJECT INC: $45,000 · HealthTHE GENESIS PROJECT INC+1 more: $7,500 · HealthTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $99,000 · EducationTHE BOARD OF T…HANDS ALONG THE NILE DEVELOPMENT SE: $43,000 · InternationalHANDS ALONG…MASS DESIGN GROUP LTD: $25,000 · InternationalMASS DESIGN…HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL: $7,500 · InternationalHELEN KELLE…THE CLEAR FUND: $69,500 · PhilanthropyTHE CLEAR …
Other$255,000Health$252,500Education$99,000International$75,500Philanthropy$69,500

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 budgetCHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION: $200,000 over 6y, 1.4% of budgetTRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES INC: $150,000 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetTHE CLEAR FUND: $69,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE GENESIS PROJECT INC: $45,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetHANDS ALONG THE NILE DEVELOPMENT SE: $43,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetMASS DESIGN GROUP LTD: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Against Malaria Foundation: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 Medhat F Sami Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Medhat F Sami Foundation Inc 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 12 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Medhat F Sami’s filings →

    More from the funding graph