· Public charity
Scholarship Fund of the University Club of Palo Alto
To make college scholarships available for deserving local high school students that are not affiliated with the organization.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 75% of SCHOLARSHIP FUND OF THE UNIVERSITY CLUB OF PALO ALTO’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 12 grants below total $143,839 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $192,084 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $48,245 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k6 grants · $39k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $105k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF SO CAL | $27,122 |
| UC DAVIS | $24,186 |
| UC BERKELEY | $15,000 |
| SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY | $13,755 |
| UC SANTA BARBARA | $12,686 |
| UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANISCO | $12,000 |
| UC SAN DIEGO | $8,200 |
| SAN JOSE STATE | $6,890 |
| HAMPTON UNIVERSITY | $6,000 |
| RENSSELAER POLTECHNIC INS | $6,000 |
| UC IRVINE | $6,000 |
| CAL STATE SACRAMENTO | $6,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 93% of your 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.
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.
12 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 3 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, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.
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
- ROREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY5× · 2021–2025 · $117k
University of San Francisco5× · 2021–2025 · $48k · revenue -3%- UOUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS2× · 2024–2025 · $48k
Funded once
- CPCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2021 · $22k
- ROREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT RIVERSIDEone grant, 2022 · $10k
- AEAscendium Education Group Incgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $6k · revenue +260%
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.
Scu is a catholic and jesuit institution that makes student learning its central focus, promotes faculty and staff learning in its various forms, and exhibits organizational learning.
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
To provide a superior, student-centered learning experience integrating liberal arts and professional education and preparing individuals for lasting achievement and responsible leadership in their careers and communities.
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
Education and Research
The mission of the university of chicago has been to sustain at the highest level of excellence, the communication of knowledge, the creation of knowledge and the fostering of a dynamic community of scholars and students.
Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.
Trinity university is an independent co-educational university whose mission is excellence in the interrelated areas of teaching, research and services.
Organization's mission ====================== the university of california, san francisco(ucsf) is among the world's leading universities dedicated to advancing health worldwide through biomedical research, graduate-level education in the…
The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…
Claremont Graduate University prepares individuals to be leaders for positive change in the world. Unique in its transdisciplinary approach, the University is dedicated to the creation, dissemination, and application of new knowledge and…
University of the sciences prepares students to become leaders, innovators, and skilled practitioners in the sciences, the health professions, and related disciplines. we deliver excellence in teaching, research, and service through a safe…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of San Francisco and the most unlike its peers is University of Southern California. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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. 8 of the 22 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 University of San Francisco ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds RUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC ↗
- Who funds Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ↗
- Who funds Ascendium Education Group Inc ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community 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 Scholarship Fund of the University Club of Palo Alto 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.
- Rutgers University Foundation — 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Scholarship Fund of the University Club of Palo Alto?
Find your warmest path to Scholarship Fund of the University Club of Palo Alto 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.