· Private foundation
The Emily Benatar 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k27 grants · $47k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $65k
- $250k+1 grant · $253k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BRIGHT MINDS AFRICA | $253,290 |
| PALO ALTO ART CENTER FOUNDATION | $40,000 |
| SF-MARIN FOOD BANK | $15,000 |
| NEW VENTURE FUND | $10,000 |
| ADA'S CAFE | $7,500 |
| INSIGHT MEDITATION CENTER OF THE PENINSULA | $6,400 |
| CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES | $5,000 |
| KQED | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,418 |
| CAMP KESEM NATIONAL | $2,500 |
| ECUMENICAL HUNGER PROGRAM | $2,100 |
| PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION - AFGHAN FAMILY RESETTLEMENT | $2,000 |
| HELP MYANMAR | $2,000 |
| LILY OF THE VALLEY | $1,500 |
| PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION - LESEDI SCHOOLS & CLINIC | $1,080 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $98k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 84% of those 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +21% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.
60 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2025, 48 since wound down; 15 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, 24% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $269k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- TVTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER3× · 2018–2024 · $158k · revenue +120%
- PAPALO ALTO ART CENTER FOUNDATION7× · 2017–2025 · $133k · revenue +44%
- NYNEPAL YOUTH FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · $116k · revenue +60%
Funded once
- VRVOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT - EVERYBODY VOTES CAMPAIGNone grant, 2023 · $100k
- AOASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENTS IN RADIO INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +367%
- VVOTEORGone grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -2%
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
For more than five decades, public advocates has challenged the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing,…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.
Ca fwd drives action to identify solutions that can be taken to scale to meet the challenges the state is facing. the organization is driven by the belief that regional solutions across the state will help ensure economic, environmental,…
Organization mission the observer research foundation america orf america is an independent, non-partisan, and nonprofit organization in washington dc dedicated to addressing policy challenges facing the united states, india, and their…
See attached statementprimary missionfuture 500 builds trust between corporations, advocates, investors, and philanthropists to advance business as a force for good. we are experts in stakeholder engagement with over 25 years of experience…
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
Activate empowers scientists to reinvent the world by bringing their research to market. activate partners with u.s. based funders, research institutions, and other pillars of the hard technology community to help entrepreneurial…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Voter Registration Project and the most unlike its peers is Middle East Media and Research Institute Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 29 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 14% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
106 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. 106 of the 145 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 THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PALO ALTO ART CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEPAL YOUTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS CLIMATE EDUCATION CORP ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds CODE FOR AMERICA LABS INC ↗
- Who funds KIMBERLY COFFEY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENTS IN RADIO INC ↗
- Who funds THE EMILY STILLMAN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds VOTEORG ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds KARA ↗
- Who funds Dream Catchers Inc ↗
- Who funds GIVEDIRECTLY INC ↗
- Who funds PLAYWORKS EDUCATION ENERGIZED ↗
- Who funds VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT ↗
- Who funds NEW STORY INC ↗
- Who funds Stag Vets Inc ↗
- Who funds That Man May See Inc DBA All May See Foundation ↗
- Who funds EAST PALO ALTO TENNIS & TUTORING ↗
- Who funds Project Invent ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Ada's Cafe ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA LEGAL AID ↗
- Who funds LUMOS FOUNDATION USA INC ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds THE DINNER PARTY LABS CO NPOC SERVICES ↗
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Philanthropic Ventures Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Embarcadero Media Foundation · The Palo Alto Community Fund · Atkinson Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation · Jacob L and Lillian Holtzmann 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 The Emily Benatar Foundation 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.
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Year Up Inc — 0% of income from government
- Hope for Haiti Inc — 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 The Emily Benatar Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Emily Benatar 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.