Skip to content
Mobedshahi Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Mobedshahi Family 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.

$52k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0167% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Human Services$150kReligion$129kEducation$14kHousing & Shelter$2kPublic Benefit$1kHealth$1kYouth Development$1kRecreation & Sports$600Other$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $2k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$1,001
Median grant
1
States reached
$13k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RIDHWAN FOUNDATION$50,000
Individual grant recipient$1,001
SAN JOSE JAZZ$500
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%POLGUZAR: $3k → 6%ACE CHARTER SCHOOL: $8k → 8%RIDHWAN FOUNDATION: $75k → 10%Jewish Home & Senior Living Foundation: $2k → 10%PACT: $100 → 14%PERSIAN ZOROASTRIAN ORGANIZATION: $5k → 8%Friends of Ridhwan: $65k → 10%AMERICAN LEADERSHIP FORUM OF SILICON VALLEY: $1k → 8%RIDHWAN FOUNDATION: $53k → 10%Saint Louise Regional Hospital: $1k → 8%RIDHWAN FOUNDATION: $50k → 10%AMBER'S ANGELS: $500 → 8%FRIENDS OF DIAMOND HEART: $50k → 10%Carry The Vision: $250 → 8%RIDHWAN FOUNDATION: $50k → 10%SAN JOSE JAZZ: $500 → 8%FRIENDS OF DIAMOND HEART: $50k → 10%PERSIAN ZORASTRIANS: $1k → 8%FRIENDS OF DIAMOND HEART: $50k → 10%MORGAN HILL KIWANIS YOUTH FOUNDATION: $1k → 8%Ridhwan Foundation: $45k → 10%Morgan Hill Aquatics Center: $100 → 8%Friends of Ridhwan: $37k → 10%ST CATHERINE'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL: $60 → 8%RIDHWAN FOUNDATION: $25k → 10%Ridhwan Foundation: $25k → 10%Ridhwan Foundation: $10k → 10%Sustainable Economies Law Center: $5k → 10%Barakat Marseille Foundation: $22k → 10%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$585k · 3 repeat orgs$51k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
15

Total granted

$585k
$50k

Still filing today

0%
53%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationInternationalHousing & ShelterPublic BenefitRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • TR
    THE RIDHWAN FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $333k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF DIAMOND HEART
    3× · 2020–2022 · $150k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF RIDHWAN
    2× · 2018–2019 · $102k

Funded once

  • BM
    Barakat Marseille Foundation
    one grant, 2018 · $22k
  • AC
    ACE CHARTER SCHOOL
    one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue +9%
  • SE
    Sustainable Economies Law Centergraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +58%
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
Valley Vision

Valley vision is a civic leadership organization dedicated to improving the livability of the sacramento region. through research and action, we collaborate on bold, long-term solutions that improve people's lives.

Community Improvement
2
San Francisco Challenge dba AmericaOne
Recreation & Sports
3
Los Altos Journalism Foundation
—
4
Center for Conscientious Leadership
Education
5
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation

Mission statement: mission: caring for our patients first and our people always. vision: to be the most comprehensive, integrated and connected health system for getting and staying well. values: excellence - we deliver high-quality,…

Health
6
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
7
Sutter Valley Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
8
Social Justice Learning Institute

Social Justice Learning Institute (SJLI) is a California not-for-profit public benefit corporation dedicated to improving the education, health, and well-being of youth and communities of color. By empowering communities to enact social…

Housing & Shelter
9
The Arc San Francisco

The mission of the arc san francisco is to transform the lives of adults with developmental disabilities by advancing lifelong learning, personal achievement, and independence.

Human Services
10
Sac Connect
—
11
Southern California University of Health Sciences

The mission of southern california university of health sciences (scu) is to educate students as competent, caring and successful practitioners of integrative healthcare. the university is committed to providing excellence in academics,…

Education
12
Silicon Valley Education Foundation

Who we are - silicon valley education foundation (svef) focuses on raising student performance in the critical areas of math and science across all 33 santa clara county school districts, and also adjoining san mateo and alameda counties.…

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Jewish Home and Senior Living Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Saint Louise Regional Hospital Howard B Grobstein Liquidating Trustee. 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

10 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. 10 of the 20 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)
9/10
Grantees still filing
4/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE RIDHWAN FOUNDATION: $332,500 · OtherTHE RIDHWAN FOUNDATIONFRIENDS OF DIAMOND HEART: $150,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF DIAMOND HEARTFRIENDS OF RIDHWAN: $102,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF RIDHWANBarakat Marseille Foundation: $22,000 · Other+8 more: $11,661 · OtherACE CHARTER SCHOOL: $7,500 · EducationSustainable Economies Law Center: $5,000 · EducationAMERICAN LEADERSHIP FORUM - SILICON VALLEY: $1,000 · EducationTHE JEWISH HOME AND SENIOR LIVING FOUNDATION: $2,000 · Housing & ShelterAMERICAN LEADERSHIP FORUM NATIONAL: $1,100 · Public BenefitAMBERS ANGELS INC: $500 · Recreation & SportsCARRY THE VISION: $250 · InternationalPACT INC: $100 · International
Other$618,161Education$13,500Housing & Shelter$2,000Public Benefit$1,100Recreation & Sports$500International$350

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetACE CHARTER SCHOOL: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE JEWISH HOME AND SENIOR LIVING FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN LEADERSHIP FORUM NATIONAL: $1,100 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetAMERICAN LEADERSHIP FORUM - SILICON VALLEY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSAINT LOUISE REGIONAL HOSPITAL HOWARD B GROBSTEIN LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSan Jose Jazz: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMBERS ANGELS INC: $500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetCARRY THE VISION: $250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPACT INC: $100 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Silicon Valley Commun…The David and Lucile …Marin Community Found…The San Francisco Fou…Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA14.5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Mobedshahi Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mobedshahi Family 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.

    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 20 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mobedshahi Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home