Skip to content
Tara Health Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Tara Health Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$7.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
39
Grants FY2024still arriving
11
States reached
$2.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Community Improvement$9.3MHealth$8.0MPhilanthropy$6.3MCivil Rights$5.7MSocial Science$2.4MEmployment$1.9MHuman Services$922kInternational$912kOther$0
02FY2024 · 39 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k12 grants · $60k
  • $10k–50k13 grants · $279k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $1.2M
  • $250k+4 grants · $5.8M
$25,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$34M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOPEWELL FUND$2,050,000
MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER$2,050,000
Individual grant recipient$1,480,000
Individual grant recipient$250,000
THE LAVENDER FUND$200,000
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION$200,000
COMMUNITY CATALYST$150,000
WE2GETHER CREATING CHANGE$125,000
MIDWEST ACCESS COALITION$100,000
THE KNIGHTS & ORCHIDS SOCIETY$100,000
NEO PHILANTHROPY$100,000
SPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES$100,000
CARY CHRISTIAN CENTER$75,000
TEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI$50,000
AMALGAMATED FOUNDATION$46,500
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 (FY20–24, $2.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 24%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 98% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BLACK MOTHERS BREASTFEEDING ASSOCIATION: $7k → 21%THE ORDINARY PEOPLE SOCIETY: $45k → 17%THE KNIGHTS & ORCHIDS SOCIETY: $100k → 33%SISTERSONG: $50k → 13%VOICE OF CALVARY MINISTRIES: $25k → 23%WE2GETHER CREATING CHANGE: $125k → 32%UNTOURS FOUNDATION: $50k → 10%THE KNIGHTS & ORCHIDS SOCIETY: $100k → 33%SISTERSONG: $50k → 13%VOICE OF CALVARY MINISTRIES: $25k → 23%WE2GETHER CREATING CHANGE: $125k → 32%THE KNIGHTS & ORCHIDS SOCIETY: $100k → 33%SISTERSONG: $50k → 13%VOICE OF CALVARY MINISTRIES: $10k → 23%WE2GETHER CREATING CHANGE: $125k → 32%KNIGHTS AND ORCHIDS SOCIETY: $10k → 33%KNIGHTS & ORCHIDS SOCIETY: $5k → 33%MISSISSIPPI URBAN LEAGUE: $50k → 23%MISSISSIPPI URBAN LEAGUE: $50k → 23%WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF MISSISSIPPI: $100k → 23%WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF MISSISSIPPI: $50k → 23%WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF MISSISSIPPI: $40k → 23%SPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES: $36k → 23%SPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES: $36k → 23%TEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $50k → 23%TEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $50k → 23%TEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $50k → 23%TEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $2k → 23%SPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES: $100k → 23%SPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES: $75k → 23%SPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES: $50k → 23%GIRLS WHO CODE: $50k → 17%BRIGID ALLIANCE: $200k → 17%THE BRIGID ALLIANCE: $75k → 17%BRIGID ALLIANCE: $75k → 17%BRIGID ALLIANCE: $30k → 17%BRIGID ALLIANCE: $5k → 17%NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA: $10k → 14%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
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
PA
CT
CA
CO
KY
VA
MD
AZ
NM
TN
NC
DC
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
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.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$27M · 67 repeat orgs$11M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +37% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

67 repeat relationships: 24 still active in FY2024, 43 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

67
132

Total granted

$27M
$10M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+37%
+10%

Still filing today

76%
48%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $270k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
HealthCivil RightsHuman ServicesEnvironmentPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • NEO Philanthropy Inc
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.9M · revenue +27%
  • RI
    RESIST INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $850k · revenue +242%
  • 9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC
    4× · 2020–2023 · $790k · revenue +49%

Funded once

  • HF
    HOPEWELL FUND
    one grant, 2023 · $2.0M
  • RH
    REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INVESTORS ALLIANCE
    one grant, 2020 · $1.0M · revenue +24% · 48% of their budget
  • UA
    UCSF - ANSIRH UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO
    one grant, 2021 · $466k
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
Forward Together

Forward Together is a national reproductive justice organization that centers people, families, and communities who experience reproductive oppression. They prioritize queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color and utilize…

Health
2
Women Winning

To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.

Public Benefit
3
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment
4
Women Donors Network

Women donors network advances a just, equitable, and sustainable world through the power of philanthropy, women's leadership, and collective and individual action.

Philanthropy
5
Womens Funding Network

Our mission as a global alliance is to provide strategies, research, and resources that support the critical agency and influence of women's foundations and gender justice funders in the movement for equality, justice, and power for all.

Education
6
Population Action International

Pai advances evidence, policies and programs to enable women, youth and at-risk communities to access sexual and reproductive health as core to health equity, climate resilience, economic well-being and gender equality.

Health
7
The Birth Center

The birth center dba lifecycle wellness and birth center is an independent non-profit organization and free-standing, out-of-hospital birth center. our team of midwives and nurse-practitioners provide empowering gynecology and…

—
8
Pro-Choice Washington

To protect and promote every persons right to access the full range of reproductive healthcare choices in Washington State, including safe and legal abortion, through education, advocacy, lobbying and coalition-building

—
9
Cobalt Foundation

Cobalt actualizes policies, structures and attitudes that secure unassailable reproductive autonomy and abortion access.

Civil Rights
10
Pregnancy Justice Inc

Pregnancy justice advances and defends the rights of pregnant people, no matter if they give birth, experience a pregnancy loss, or have an abortion. we advance our mission in four ways: by providing criminal defense, by advocating for…

Civil Rights
11
Fos Feminista Fund

Fos feminista fund was formed exclusively for charitable purposes to support, foster, aid, and enhance access to contraception, responsible parenthood, reproductive health, and empowerment of women and shall aid and support the activities…

Health
12
Pro-Choice Arizona

Pro-Choice Arizona centers abolition and reproductive justice values to prioritize community needs. We advance reproductive equity, pregnancy and family justice, and abortion access for all folks living in Arizona through direct service…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Catalyst Inc; the most unlike its peers is Indigenous Women Rising Indigeous Women Rising. 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

135 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. 135 of the 218 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.

9
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
37
Early backer (in before they grew)
131/135
Grantees still filing
83/135
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $3,885,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $3,015,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientHOPEWELL FUND: $2,011,481 · OtherHOPEWELL FUNDRESIST INC: $850,000 · Other9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC: $789,500 · OtherWOMEN OF THE WORLD ENDOWMENT INC: $737,000 · Other+116 more: $10,312,726 · Other+116 moreMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $4,765,000 · Community ImprovementMOVEMENT STRA…SOCIETY OF FAMILY PLANNING: $200,000 · Community Improvement+4 more: $77,760 · Community ImprovementREPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INVESTORS ALLIANCE: $1,000,000 · HealthREPRODUCTIVE…COMMUNITY CATALYST INC: $775,000 · HealthCOMMUNITY CA…COMMONSENSE CHILDBIRTH INC: $425,000 · HealthCOMMONSENSE …ABORTION CARE NETWORK: $350,000 · HealthABORTION CAR…CARY CHRISTIAN CENTER INC: $270,000 · HealthCARY CHRISTI…CALIFORNIA BREASTFEEDING COALITION: $225,000 · HealthGYNUITY HEALTH PROJECTS INC: $225,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $200,000 · HealthTHE LAVENDER FUND: $200,000 · HealthALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $200,000 · Health+16 more: $755,000 · Health+16 moreHOPEWELL FUND: $2,445,500 · PhilanthropyHOPEWELL F…Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc: $816,500 · PhilanthropyAmalgamate…ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $250,000 · PhilanthropyROCKEFELLE…Groundswell Fund: $200,000 · Philanthropy+7 more: $265,735 · Philanthropy+7 moreUnited for Respect: $650,000 · Civil RightsUltraViolet Education Fund: $507,000 · Civil RightsJobs with Justice: $475,000 · Civil RightsMIDWEST ACCESS COALITION: $250,000 · Civil RightsAPIARY FOR PRACTICAL SUPPORT INC: $200,000 · Civil RightsONE FAIR WAGE INC: $180,000 · Civil RightsNARRATIVE NATION INC: $110,000 · Civil Rights+7 more: $220,000 · Civil RightsTHE BRIGID ALLIANCE INC: $385,000 · Human ServicesWe2gether Creating Change: $375,000 · Human ServicesTHE KNIGHTS & ORCHIDS SOCIETY INC: $315,000 · Human ServicesSPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES: $297,000 · Human ServicesWOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF MISSISSIPPI: $190,000 · Human ServicesTEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $152,000 · Human ServicesSISTERSONG INC: $150,000 · Human ServicesMISSISSIPPI URBAN LEAGUE: $100,000 · Human Services+7 more: $254,700 · Human ServicesNEO Philanthropy Inc: $1,885,500 · Public BenefitPUBLIC PRIVATE STRATEGIES INSTITUTE: $75,000 · Public Benefit+4 more: $90,000 · Public Benefit
Other$21,600,707Community Improvement$5,042,760Health$4,625,000Philanthropy$3,977,735Civil Rights$2,592,000Human Services$2,218,700Public Benefit$2,050,500

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $4,765,000 over 5y, 6.9% of budgetHOPEWELL FUND: $2,445,500 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $1,885,500 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INVESTORS ALLIANCE: $1,000,000 over 1y, 48% of budgetRESIST INC: $850,000 over 3y, 4.9% of budgetAmalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc: $816,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budget9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC: $789,500 over 4y, 3.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY CATALYST INC: $775,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetWOMEN OF THE WORLD ENDOWMENT INC: $737,000 over 2y, 53% of budgetUnited for Respect: $650,000 over 4y, 11% of budgetAS YOU SOW: $600,000 over 5y, 3.8% of budgetUltraViolet Education Fund: $507,000 over 4y, 15% of budgetJobs with Justice: $475,000 over 3y, 23% of budgetCOMMONSENSE CHILDBIRTH INC: $425,000 over 2y, 7.8% of budgetTHE BRIGID ALLIANCE INC: $385,000 over 3y, 6.4% of budgetWe2gether Creating Change: $375,000 over 3y, 36% of budgetABORTION CARE NETWORK: $350,000 over 3y, 3.3% of budgetNeighborhood Funders Group: $350,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetPROTEUS FUND INC: $350,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $330,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE KNIGHTS & ORCHIDS SOCIETY INC: $315,000 over 4y, 9.5% of budgetSPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES: $297,000 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetCARY CHRISTIAN CENTER INC: $270,000 over 5y, 10% of budgetHIGHLANDER RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER INC: $250,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetMIDWEST ACCESS COALITION: $250,000 over 4y, 6.0% of budgetROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $250,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH: $250,000 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetCALIFORNIA BREASTFEEDING COALITION: $225,000 over 3y, 35% of budgetGYNUITY HEALTH PROJECTS INC: $225,000 over 1y, 9.2% of budgetAPIARY FOR PRACTICAL SUPPORT INC: $200,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $200,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE LAVENDER FUND: $200,000 over 1y, 39% of budgetSOCIETY OF FAMILY PLANNING: $200,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetGroundswell Fund: $200,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $200,000 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetWOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF MISSISSIPPI: $190,000 over 2y, 5.8% of budgetONE FAIR WAGE INC: $180,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetTEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $152,000 over 4y, 4.3% of budgetBOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION: $150,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSISTERSONG INC: $150,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCENTER OF SOUTHWEST CULTURE INC: $148,500 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetWHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE: $118,000 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetNARRATIVE NATION INC: $110,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetWest Fund: $105,000 over 2y, 12% of budgetMISSISSIPPI URBAN LEAGUE: $100,000 over 2y, 26% of budgetNational Association to Advance Black Birth: $100,000 over 2y, 74% of budgetDESIGNING JUSTICE DESIGNING SPACES: $100,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $99,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
  • Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
  • Who funds REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INVESTORS ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds RESIST INC ↗
  • Who funds Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds 9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY CATALYST INC ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN OF THE WORLD ENDOWMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds United for Respect ↗
  • Who funds AS YOU SOW ↗
  • Who funds UltraViolet Education Fund ↗
  • Who funds Jobs with Justice ↗
  • Who funds COMMONSENSE CHILDBIRTH INC ↗
  • Who funds THE BRIGID ALLIANCE INC ↗
  • Who funds We2gether Creating Change ↗
  • Who funds ABORTION CARE NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds Neighborhood Funders Group ↗
  • Who funds PROTEUS FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE KNIGHTS & ORCHIDS SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds SPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES ↗
  • Who funds CARY CHRISTIAN CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds HIGHLANDER RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds MIDWEST ACCESS COALITION ↗
  • Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
  • Who funds INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA BREASTFEEDING COALITION ↗
  • Who funds GYNUITY HEALTH PROJECTS INC ↗
  • Who funds APIARY FOR PRACTICAL SUPPORT INC ↗

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.

Hopewell FundAmalgamated Charitabl…Ms Foundation for Wom…Groundswell FundNew Venture FundWK Kellogg FoundationThe Susan Thompson Bu…Rockefeller Philanthr…Women Donors NetworkThe Grove FoundationThe Ford FoundationImpactassetsinc
Hopewell FundDC51.1× affinity26 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hopewell Fund · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · Groundswell Fund · New Venture Fund · WK Kellogg Foundation · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Women Donors Network · The Grove Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Impactassetsinc

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 Tara Health Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Tara Health Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 100%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 15%
  • Boston Medical Center Corporation: 23% of income from government
  • Community Catalyst Inc: 15% of income from government
  • Resist Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
10get no government money at all
28report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 Tara Health Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Tara Health Foundation 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 218 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Tara Health’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