Skip to content
Shethar Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Shethar Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$41k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0188% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Health$76kInternational$23kEducation$16kEnvironment$15kHuman Services$10kFood & Nutrition$5kCommunity Improvement$3kAnimals$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $11k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
$5,472
Median grant
2
States reached
$345k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA$15,000
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL$15,000
WESTSIDE CARES$5,472
CARE AND SHARE$5,000
BETH HAVEN INC$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 (FY24–24, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SOLID ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP: $3k → 9%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.

45%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$80k · 4 repeat orgs$99k to everyone else

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

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
6

Total granted

$80k
$64k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+23%

Still filing today

75%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

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

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

’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalHealthEducationEnvironmentFood & NutritionHuman ServicesOther
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

  • PP
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD
    2× · 2022–2024 · $45k
  • IR
    International Rescue Committee INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $23k · revenue -4%
  • WC
    WESTSIDE CARES INC
    2× · 2023–2025 · $10k · revenue +22%

Funded once

  • HEALTHY LIVING COMMUNITY
    one grant, 2021 · $16k · revenue +23%
  • WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC
    one grant, 2021 · $16k · revenue -27%
  • A
    ANEDEN
    one grant, 2023 · $15k
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
Regional West Health Services

Health care services for the people of western nebraska and eastern wyoming.

Health
2
Community Affordable Residences Enterprise Inc

To create an equitable and just community through high quality affordable housing and transformative resident services. We envision a community where an affordable home is available to everyone.

Housing & Shelter
3
Boulder Watershed Collective

The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…

Environment
4
Second Chance Center Inc

Our goal is to help formerly incarcerated people transition to lives of success and fulfillment. We provide the formerly incarcerated, and their network, with education, resources, and support to successfully re-enter the community and…

Human Services
5
Boulder Community Housing Corporation Inc

The mission statement of Boulder Community Housing Organization is to provide quality, affordable homes and foster thriving communities. They aim to create a diverse, inclusive, and sustainable Boulder by offering affordable housing…

Housing & Shelter
6
Refugee Care Collective Northwest

Provide care to refugee families.

Human Services
7
Western Reserve Community

Works to enhance the quality of life by providing affordable housing and improving neighborhoods.

Community Improvement
8
Welcome Home Coalition

Welcome Home is a diverse coalition in the Portland metropolitan region that uses its collective resources to create healthy communities by ensuring everyone has an affordable and stable home. We use community education and collaboration…

Community Improvement
9
South Peninsula Behavioral Health Services Inc

The organization operates primarily on the Southern Kenai Peninsula and its operations include the following:Community Mental Health - Counseling, evaluation, consultation and crisis mental health services for Adults and…

Health
10
Lutheran Community Services Northwest

LCSNW partners with individuals, families and communities for health, justice and hope. LCSNW provides a wide variety of social services in Oregon, Washington and Idaho and serves people of all ages, cultures and faiths.

Human Services
11
Harbor Homes Inc

Harbor Care's mission is to provide vital services, including housing and healthcare to all in our communities needing assistance. Our vision is one where everyone gets to live safe, stable, and healthy lives, filled with purpose, respect…

Housing & Shelter
12
The Cornerstone of Beaver County

To coordinate local housing resources to prevent and end homelessness.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Westside Cares Inc; the most unlike its peers is Solid Rock Community Developmentcorporation. 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

8 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. 8 of the 13 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $45,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOODCHILDRENS HOSPITAL: $15,000 · OtherCHILDRENS HOSPITALANEDEN: $15,000 · OtherANEDENIndividual grant recipient: $13,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientWESTSIDE CARES INC: $10,472 · OtherWESTSIDE CARES INC+2 more: $3,500 · OtherInternational Rescue Committee INC: $23,000 · InternationalInternational …HEALTHY LIVING COMMUNITY: $15,500 · HealthHEALTHY L…WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC: $15,500 · EducationWILLIAM J…TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA: $15,000 · EnvironmentTRUSTEES …Care and Share Inc: $5,000 · Food & NutritionSOLID ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION: $3,000 · Human Services
Other$101,972International$23,000Health$15,500Education$15,500Environment$15,000Food & Nutrition$5,000Human Services$3,000

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 budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $23,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHEALTHY LIVING COMMUNITY: $15,500 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetWILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC: $15,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES FOR ALASKA: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetWESTSIDE CARES INC: $10,472 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCare and Share Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOLID ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION: $3,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBethHaven Incorporated: $1,500 over 2y, 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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Shethar Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Shethar Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 13 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 Shethar 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