· Private foundation
Omron Foundation Inc
Its FY2025 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 FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k176 grants · $229k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $160k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| National Merit Scholarship Corporation | $45,152 |
| HealthCorps Inc | $30,000 |
| Respiratory Health Assc of Metro Chicago | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $18,100 |
| Samaritan's Purse | $15,000 |
| Concordia Language Services | $11,250 |
| Gigi's Playhouse | $10,500 |
| American Heart Association | $10,000 |
| Techo | $7,160 |
| North Central College | $5,000 |
| Feed My Starving Children | $5,000 |
| Samaritan's Purse | $5,000 |
| Safe Families for Children Natl Office | $5,000 |
| Northwest Harvest | $5,000 |
| Safe Families for Children Natl Office | $5,000 |
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 (FY20–25, $334k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 59% 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 +24% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
165 repeat relationships — 67 still active in FY2025, 98 since wound down; 40 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $113k 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
- MUMarquette University2× · 2023–2024 · $273k · revenue +18%
- NCNorth Central College6× · 2020–2025 · $231k · revenue +19%
- NMNational Merit Scholarship Corporation6× · 2020–2025 · $158k · revenue +34%
Funded once
- UOUniversity of Michigan Dearboone grant, 2023 · $200k
- WTWine to Waterone grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue 0%
- UOUNIV OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTONone grant, 2024 · $45k
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.
The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…
United Food Bank unites communities to alleviate hunger.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
On a mission to connect every person facing hunger with nutritious meals by maximizing food rescue. through direct service and community partnerships, feeding san diego provides more than 26 million meals each year to children, families,…
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
Inspired by the gift of donation from our communities, allosource responsibly provides innovative cellular and tissue allografts to advance patient healing.
City of Hope's mission is to make hope a reality for all touched by cancer and diabetes. PLEASE SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A CONTINUATION OF OUR MISSION
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
To promote public health, safety, and welfare through the improvement of the quality and quantity of drinking water and the development and furtherance of understanding of the problems relating thereto.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of America and the most unlike its peers is Internet Archive. 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 33 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.7% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
287 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. 287 of the 449 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 Marquette University ↗
- Who funds HEALTHCORPS INC ↗
- Who funds North Central College ↗
- Who funds National Merit Scholarship Corporation ↗
- Who funds THE HARBOUR INC ↗
- Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
- Who funds MARKLUND CHILDRENS HOME ↗
- Who funds WINNING FUTURES ↗
- Who funds Wine to Water ↗
- Who funds FEED MY STARVING CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds SME EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON FIRST ROBOTICS ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST HARVEST EMM ↗
- Who funds NASHUA CENTER ↗
- Who funds OPEN HEART KITCHEN OF LIVERMORE INC ↗
- Who funds MEND - Meet Each Need With Dignity ↗
- Who funds WESTSIDE BABY ↗
- Who funds EDUCARE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SPARTANBURG COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds RESPIRATORY HEALTH ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Kent Schools Foundation ↗
- Who funds CRADLES TO CRAYONS INC ↗
- Who funds SAMARITAN'S PURSE ↗
- Who funds INSCITE ILLINOIS ↗
- Who funds LA FAMILY HOUSING CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Los Angeles ↗
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: Puget Sound Energy Foundation · Motorola Solutions Foundation · Baxter International Foundation · The Norcliffe Foundation · Seattle Foundation · The Bullitt Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · Moccasin Lake Foundation · Arthur J Gallagher Foundation · Raikes Foundation · The Albertsons Companies Foundation · T-Mobile USA Foundation
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 Omron Foundation Inc 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.
- Alpha-Omega Miracle Home Inc — 46% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- The Shriners' Hospital for Children — 6% of income from government
- Cradles to Crayons Inc — 2% of income from government
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Food for the Poor Inc — 0% of income from government
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.