Skip to content
Mohapatra Family Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Mohapatra Family 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.

$333k
Granted FY2022
5
Grants FY2022
4
States reached
$270k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

58% of Mohapatra Family Foundation Inc’s FY2025 grant dollars went to The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 5 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2022, the last year Mohapatra Family Foundation Inc named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $333k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

0
’19
0
’20
0
’21
5
’22
3
’23
0
’24
5
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0179% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Education$1.6MHealth$110kInternational$35kEnvironment$10kHuman Services$2kOther$0
02FY2022 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k1 grant · $2k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $62k
  • $250k+1 grant · $270k
$15,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$6.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
The Rockefeller University$270,000
University of Central Florida Foundation Inc$36,900
Malaria No More$15,000
Safe Water Network$10,000
Child and Family Advocates Inc$1,500
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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–22, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Child and Family Advocates Inc: $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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$683k · 3 repeat orgs$183k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2022, 0 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call). Read against FY2022, 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

3
5

Total granted

$683k
$183k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-14%
-11%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 45% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $161k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’25
EducationPhilanthropyEnvironmentHuman ServicesHealthInternationalOther
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 ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2022–2025 · $415k · revenue -14%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC
    3× · 2022–2025 · $233k · revenue +16%
  • MN
    MALARIA NO MORE FUND
    2× · 2022–2025 · $35k · revenue -70%

Funded once

  • TV
    THE VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2025 · $100k · revenue +157%
  • BS
    BRITISH SCHOOLS & UNIVERSITIES FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2025 · $61k · revenue 0%
  • TV
    THE VALLEY HOSPITAL AUXILIARY
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue -11%
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
Stony Brook Urology University Faculty Practice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
2
Stony Brook Surgical Associates University Faculty Practice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
3
Cornell University

Education, research, medical services and other public services.

Education
4
University of Virginia Investment Management Company

The university of virginia investment management company (uvimco) is organized to invest funds on behalf of the rector and visitors of the university of virginia (the university or uva) and university-associated organizations (uaos).

Education
5
The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge

The mission of the university of cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. organizationally, we achieve this through two divisions…

—
6
University Associates in Obstetrics and Gynecology University Faculty Pract ice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
7
Neurology Associates of Stony Brook University Faculty Practice Corp

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
8
The Baruch College Fund

The baruch college fund is an organization engaged in generating, encouraging and promoting the educational welfare of the students of the bernard m. baruch college of the city university of new york.

Education
9
Stony Brook Internists University Faculty Practice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
10
Stony Brook Orthopedic Associates University Faculty Practice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
11
Trustees of Boston University

Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…

—
12
Stony Brook Childrens Services University Faculty Practice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York; the most unlike its peers is Child and Family Advocates 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.

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
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $850,000 · EducationTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORKTHE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: $415,000 · EducationTHE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $232,600 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA FOUNDATION INCTHE VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 · HealthBRITISH SCHOOLS & UNIVERSITIES FOUNDATION INC: $61,100 · InternationalMALARIA NO MORE FUND: $35,000 · PhilanthropyTHE VALLEY HOSPITAL AUXILIARY: $10,000 · OtherSAFE WATER NETWORK: $10,000 · EnvironmentCHILD AND FAMILY ADVOCATES INC: $1,500 · Human Services
Education$1,497,600Health$100,000International$61,100Philanthropy$35,000Other$10,000Environment$10,000Human Services$1,500

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 budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $850,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: $415,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $232,600 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetBRITISH SCHOOLS & UNIVERSITIES FOUNDATION INC: $61,100 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMALARIA NO MORE FUND: $35,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE VALLEY HOSPITAL AUXILIARY: $10,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetSAFE WATER NETWORK: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Mohapatra Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mohapatra Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 9 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mohapatra 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