Skip to content
Samf Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Samf Fund

The primary activity of SAMF FUND is to support the san antonio medical foundation, a 501(c) (3) organization by managing its investments and unrelated real estate.

$2.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$4.2MScience & Tech$1.0MRecreation & Sports$1.0MEducation$871kPublic Safety & Disaster$169k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k5 grants · $999k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.0M
$200,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$23M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO$1,000,000
TRINITY UNIVERSITY$200,000
UT HEALTH SAN ANTONIO$200,000
UT HEALTH SAN ANTONIO$199,960
THE METIS FOUNDATION$199,784
UTSA$199,537
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%CITY OF SAN ANTONIO: $1.0M → 16%san antonio fire department: $69k → 16%texas biomedical research institute: $173k → 16%Texas Biomedical Research Institute: $200k → 16%Texas Biomedical Research Institute: $181k → 16%Texas Biomedical Research Institute: $130k → 16%South Texas Regional Advisory Council: $100k → 16%university of texas at san antonio: $341k → 16%university of texas at san antonio: $330k → 16%University of Texas at San Antonio: $288k → 16%university of texas at san antonio: $200k → 16%TRINITY UNIVERSITY: $200k → 16%UTSA: $200k → 16%TRINITY UNIVERSITY: $200k → 16%UTSA: $200k → 16%ut health science center san antonio: $428k → 16%ut health science center san antonio: $214k → 16%UT HEALTH SAN ANTONIO: $200k → 16%Foundation for Advancing Veterans Health Research: $200k → 16%UT HEALTH SAN ANTONIO: $200k → 16%ut health science center san antonio: $200k → 16%UT HEALTH SAN ANTONIO: $200k → 16%UT HEALTH SAN ANTONIO: $200k → 16%ut health science center san antonio: $200k → 16%ut health science center san antonio: $100k → 16%ECUMENICAL CENTER: $50k → 16%Ronald McDonald House Charities of San Antonio: $45k → 16%RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF SAN ANTONIO: $45k → 16%THE METIS FOUNDATION: $200k → 16%southwest research institute: $200k → 16%southwest research institute: $200k → 16%SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $195k → 16%southwest research institute: $184k → 16%southwest research institute: $173k → 16%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.

73%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.3M · 7 repeat orgs$1.9M to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
5

Total granted

$5.3M
$749k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+4%
+63%

Still filing today

71%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 40% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.2M went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthScience & TechEducationOther
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

  • SR
    Southwest Research Institute
    5× · 2020–2024 · $952k · revenue +39%
  • TB
    TEXAS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
    4× · 2018–2022 · $684k · revenue +55%
  • TU
    Trinity University
    2× · 2024–2025 · $400k · revenue +4%

Funded once

  • UO
    university of texas at san antonio
    one grant, 2020 · $330k
  • FF
    FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCING VETERANS' HEALTH RESEARCHgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $200k · revenue +66%
  • ST
    SOUTHWEST TEXAS REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue +63%
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
The University of TexasTexas a&M Investment Management Company

To generate superior long-term investment returns to support The University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems as they provide world-class teaching, push the boundaries of discovery, and achieve excellence in patient healthcare for…

Education
2
Texas Academy of Medicine Engineering Science and Technology

To provide broader recognition of the state's top achievers in medicine, engineering and science, and to build a stronger identity for texas as an important destination and center of achievement in these fields.

Health
3
Texas a&M Research Foundation

To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.

Education
4
San Antonio Medical Foundation

The mission of the san antonio medical foundation is to improvehealth care, advance biomedical science, and enhance communitywell-being by providing leadership & active stewardship of our landand other assets.

Health
5
Texas Medical Association

The texas medical association (tma), the nation's largest and one of the oldest state medical societies, represents over 59,000 physicians and medical students dedicated to enhancing the health of all texans. in collaboration with 110…

—
6
Southwestern Health Resources

To further the missions of utsw and thr on a local, regional and national level through the creation of a clinically integrated network of physicians, hospitals and other care providers to deliver healthcare across the continuum and by…

Health
7
Uatx

Uatx is a nonprofit dedicated to building a liberal arts university committed to freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience, and civil discourse. to maintain these principles, the university will be fiercely independent financially,…

Education
8
Seattle Biomedical Research Institute

We conduct fundamental infectious disease research to generate critical new knowledge about pathogens and their interactions with see schedule o for continuationhumans to enable the discovery and development of novel interventions,…

—
9
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
10
Sansum Diabetes Research Institute

Dedicated to improving the lives of people impacted by diabetes through research, education and care.

Health
11
Texas Health Research & Education Institute

Conduct medical research, offer educational programs and undertake development projects that contribute to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease.

Health
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Foundation for Advancing Veterans' Health Research; the most unlike its peers is Metis Foundation. 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 14 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO: $1,970,592 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIOCITY MISSION OF SAN ANTONIO: $1,000,000 · OtherCITY MISSION OF SAN ANTONIOTHE UNIV OF TX HEALTH SCIENCE CTR OF SA: $799,851 · OtherTHE UNIV OF TX HEALTH SCIENCE CTR OF SAUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $399,537 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO ALUMNI ASSOCIATIONuniversity of texas at san antonio: $329,932 · Otheruniversity of texas at san antonio+2 more: $119,000 · OtherTEXAS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $684,051 · HealthTEXAS BIOMEDICAL RE…FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCING VETERANS' HEALTH RESEARCH: $200,000 · HealthFOUNDATION FOR ADVA…METIS FOUNDATION: $199,784 · HealthMETIS FOUNDATIONSOUTHWEST TEXAS REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL: $100,000 · HealthSOUTHWEST TEXAS REG…RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF SAN ANTONIO INC: $90,000 · HealthRONALD MCDONALD HOU…Southwest Research Institute: $951,603 · Science & TechSouthwest Rese…Trinity University: $400,000 · Education
Other$4,618,912Health$1,273,835Science & Tech$951,603Education$400,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSouthwest Research Institute: $951,603 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTEXAS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $684,051 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetTrinity University: $400,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $399,537 over 2y, 10% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR ADVANCING VETERANS' HEALTH RESEARCH: $200,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetSOUTHWEST TEXAS REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL: $100,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF SAN ANTONIO INC: $90,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetECUMENICAL CENTER FOR RELIGION AND HEALT: $50,000 over 1y, 1.7% 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.

San Antonio Area Foun…Amazonsmile Foundation
San Antonio Area FoundationTX13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: San Antonio Area Foundation · 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 Samf Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Samf Fund. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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
    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 Samf Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Samf Fund 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 14 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Samf’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