· Private foundation
Michael Stars Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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 · FY2024
- Under $10k6 grants · $28k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $75k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| EDWARD CHARLES FDN | $50,000 |
| STEP UP WOMEN'S NETWORK | $25,000 |
| PLAN C C O NATL WOMENS HEALTH | $10,000 |
| ERA COALITION FUND FOR WOMENS | $10,000 |
| BABY 2 BABY | $10,000 |
| SOCIAL GOOD | $10,000 |
| CHILDREN MENDING HEARTS | $10,000 |
| CULTURE CLUB SOUTH BAY | $5,000 |
| CULTURE CLUB OF S BAY | $5,000 |
| BELOVED ASHEVILLE | $5,000 |
| WIN SUMMIT LLC CO DANIELLA KAH | $5,000 |
| BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN | $5,000 |
| PS I LOVE YOU FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
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 (FY17–24, $153k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 -2% since the first grant, against -18% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 26% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $105k 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
- CMCHILDREN MENDING HEARTS INC6× · 2017–2024 · $59k · revenue +367%
- TTTAKE THE LEAD INC4× · 2019–2022 · $50k · revenue +64%
- PIPS I Love You Foundation2× · 2021–2024 · $4k · revenue +21%
Funded once
- GGIVELOVEone grant, 2019 · $35k · revenue -55%
- AFACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -18%
- BVBLACK VOTERS MATTERone grant, 2020 · $17k
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.
Our mission as a global alliance is to provide strategies, research, and resources that support the critical agency and influence of women's foundations and gender justice funders in the movement for equality, justice, and power for all.
Ultraviolet education fund (uvef) is a 501c3 organization. ultraviolet is the premier national organization advocating for gender justice issues using creative, strategic campaigning and digital-first organizing. ultraviolet drives…
Women deliver is a global feminist advocacy organization with a clear mission: to ensure that every self-identifying girl and woman has control over her body and life. see organization's full mission statement in schedule o.
Women donors network advances a just, equitable, and sustainable world through the power of philanthropy, women's leadership, and collective and individual action.
To support and empower all affected by gynecologic cancers through education, research, and public awareness.
Girls for gender equity (gge) works intergenerationally, through a black feminist lens, to achieve gender and racial justice by centering the leadership of black girls and gender-expansive young people of color to reshape culture and…
Advocate for gender equality in the film industry.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
Fueling a worldwide network of women human rights defenders (whrds) to strengthen laws, policies and practices to end sexual and gender-based violence (sgbv).
A 503C3 Organization design to equip suffering girls and women around the world by helping them gain access to quality healthcare, education and economic empowerment initiatives aimed to foster self-este
To promote safe and healthy relationships and support survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and sex trafficking. weave's vision is: when everyone acts, violence ends.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ms Foundation for Women Inc and the most unlike its peers is Women Thrive Worldwide (Ch 7 Bkrptcy). Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 20 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
60 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. 60 of the 81 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 STEP UP WOMEN'S NETWORK ↗
- Who funds TENDER FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN MENDING HEARTS INC ↗
- Who funds FUND FOR WOMEN'S EQUALITY INC ↗
- Who funds EDWARD CHARLES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TAKE THE LEAD INC ↗
- Who funds GIVELOVE ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds VOTO LATINO FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MARCH ON ↗
- Who funds GIRL EFFECT INC ↗
- Who funds MADRE INC ↗
- Who funds JOYFUL HEART FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ONE FAIR WAGE INC ↗
- Who funds MS FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds Repairers of the Breach ↗
- Who funds BABY2BABY ↗
- Who funds Global Outreach and Love of Soccer Inc ↗
- Who funds UTAH FILM CENTER ↗
- Who funds HISPANICS IN PHILANTHROPY ↗
- Who funds Freefrom ↗
- Who funds BLACK WOMEN LEAD ↗
- Who funds PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds Outward Bound Adventures ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds ARTS AND BUSINESS COUNCIL OF GREATER NASHVILLE INC ↗
- Who funds CHOOSE LOVE INC ↗
- Who funds Dressember Foundation ↗
- Who funds BELOVEORG ↗
- Who funds THE LOVELAND FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds The Representation Project ↗
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: California Community Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Edward Charles Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Novo Foundation · Weingart Foundation · Pledgeling Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · The Chicago Community Trust
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 Michael Stars 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.