Skip to content
Seva Fund Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Seva Fund 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.

$6k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

International$104kHealth$56kEnvironment$32kHuman Services$28kHousing & Shelter$21kPhilanthropy$20kYouth Development$12kFood & Nutrition$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS$5,500
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 (FY17–22, $18k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%OCJ KIDS: $1k → 11%JACK'S HELPING HAND: $11k → 12%WILSHIRE COMMUNITY SERVICES: $6k → 12%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
IL
NY
OR
PA
CA
UT
MD
AZ
KS
TN
DC
TX
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.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$157k · 9 repeat orgs$119k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +94% since the first grant, against +53% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
26

Total granted

$157k
$119k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+94%
+53%

Still filing today

44%
54%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalHuman ServicesHealthArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentOther
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

  • EK
    END KIDS CANCER
    4× · 2020–2023 · $37k · revenue +94% · 35% of their budget
  • MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC
    3× · 2018–2025 · $16k · revenue +89%
  • TD
    THE DIGDEEP RIGHT TO WATER PROJECT
    2× · 2017–2018 · $2k · revenue +893%

Funded once

  • CF
    CITY FARM SLO
    one grant, 2023 · $30k
  • NC
    NATIONAL CASAGAL ASSOC CHILDREN
    one grant, 2019 · $12k
  • JH
    JACKS HELPING HAND INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $11k · revenue +130%
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
Management Sciences for Health Inc

(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.

International
2
Good Neighbors Usa

Good neighbors usa is an international humanitarian and development organization committed to build a global community where people live together in health, harmony, and dignity.

International
3
Health Poverty Action Usa

Health Poverty Action USA acts in solidarity with health workers, activists & communities worldwide to improve health & challenge the causes of poverty. We do this in 3 distinct ways: 1. We approach health as an issue of social justice. We…

International
4
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

The mission of the global alliance for improved nutrition (gain) is to improve the consumption of healthier diets for all, especially the most vulnerable, by improving the availability, affordability, desirability, and sustainability of…

Food & Nutrition
5
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
6
Helen Keller International

Guided by her remarkable legacy of its co-founder, helen keller, helen keller intl partners with communities that are striving to overcome longstanding cycles of poverty. by delivering the essential building blocks of good health, sound…

International
7
Water for People

Water for people exists to develop high quality water and sanitation, accessible to all, and sustained by strong communities, businesses, and governments, working in ten countries; guatemala, honduras, tanzania, peru, bolivia, uganda,…

International
8
World Relief Corp of National Association of Evangelicals

To boldly engage the world's greatest crises in partnership with the church.

International
9
Muso Inc

Muso works to create a cure for delay because no one should die waiting for health care.

International
10
Americares Foundation Inc

Americares mission is to help people and communities around the world access (see schedule o).

International
11
Pure Hands Inc

Pure Hands, Inc.s mission is preservation of human lives by elimination of hunger through detection, prevention and treatment of malnutrition. Pure Hands, Inc. tackles the underlying causes of malnutrition and poverty during and after…

International
12
Chemists Without Borders

Chemists without borders is a global humanitarian organization committed to sustainable and equitable solutions that empower communities and improve overall well-being. our strategic framework is: service - developing, facilitating, and…

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tibet Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Pureland Project. 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

18 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. 18 of the 35 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
15/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITY FARM SLO: $30,000 · OtherCITY FARM SLODOCTORS WITHOUT BOARDERS USA: $24,000 · OtherDOCTORS WITHOUT BOARDERS USAECHO SHELTER: $18,193 · OtherECHO SHELTERNATIONAL CASAGAL ASSOC CHILDREN: $12,100 · OtherNATIONAL CASAGAL ASSOC CHILDRENIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientSEVA FUND: $7,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $6,000 · OtherNYERONGSHA INSTITUTE CHILDRENS FUND: $6,000 · OtherNYERONGSHA INSTITUTE: $5,000 · Other+11 more: $15,135 · Other+11 moreThe American Himalayan Foundation: $45,000 · InternationalThe American Himalayan Founda…MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $15,500 · InternationalMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA …Tibet Fund Inc: $5,000 · InternationalTibet Fund IncSEVA FOUNDATION: $4,000 · InternationalSEVA FOUNDATION+2 more: $1,500 · InternationalEND KIDS CANCER: $37,000 · HealthEND KIDS CANCERJACKS HELPING HAND INC: $10,995 · Human ServicesJACKS HEL…WILSHIRE COMMUNITY SERVICES: $6,483 · Human ServicesWILSHIRE …COVENANT HOUSE: $2,500 · Human ServicesCOVENANT …OCJ KIDS: $1,000 · Human ServicesLUMINA ALLIANCE: $988 · Human ServicesESTERO BAY KINDNESS COALITION: $10,000 · PhilanthropyTHE DIGDEEP RIGHT TO WATER PROJECT: $2,000 · EnvironmentFeeding America: $1,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$133,428International$71,000Health$37,000Human Services$21,966Philanthropy$10,000Environment$2,000Food & Nutrition$1,000

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 American Himalayan Foundation: $45,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetEND KIDS CANCER: $37,000 over 4y, 35% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $15,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetJACKS HELPING HAND INC: $10,995 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetESTERO BAY KINDNESS COALITION: $10,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetWILSHIRE COMMUNITY SERVICES: $6,483 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTibet Fund Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSEVA FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOVENANT HOUSE: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE DIGDEEP RIGHT TO WATER PROJECT: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFeeding America: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMercy Ships International: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOCJ KIDS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLUMINA ALLIANCE: $988 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPURELAND PROJECT: $500 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

  • Who funds The American Himalayan Foundation ↗
  • Who funds END KIDS CANCER ↗
  • Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
  • Who funds JACKS HELPING HAND INC ↗
  • Who funds ESTERO BAY KINDNESS COALITION ↗
  • Who funds WILSHIRE COMMUNITY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds Tibet Fund Inc ↗
  • Who funds SEVA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds COVENANT HOUSE ↗
  • Who funds THE DIGDEEP RIGHT TO WATER PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds Feeding America ↗
  • Who funds SMILE TRAIN INC ↗
  • Who funds USANA TRUE HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Mercy Ships International ↗
  • Who funds OCJ KIDS ↗
  • Who funds LUMINA ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds PURELAND PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds ABLEVOICES ↗

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.

Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Network for GoodDC8.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Seva Fund Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Seva Fund Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%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
    5report 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 35 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Seva’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