Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Kharazi 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.

$13k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Food & Nutrition$113kCrime & Legal$37kHuman Services$31kPublic Benefit$31kArts & Culture$28kHealth$8kEducation$4kInternational$3kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $3k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$2,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$200k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SLO FOOD BANK$10,000
SAN JOAQUIN COLLEGE OF LAW$2,500
IRANIAN CULTURE AND ART$100
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 (FY19–22, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%EVANGEL HOME: $15k → 19%EVANGEL HOME: $3k → 19%EVANGEL HOME: $2k → 19%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 12% of The Kharazi Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The Kharazi Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$229k · 12 repeat orgs$28k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
5

Total granted

$229k
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
+114%

Still filing today

50%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 21% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Food & NutritionCrime & LegalHuman ServicesHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • CC
    CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANK
    5× · 2018–2023 · $92k · revenue +92%
  • CC
    CENTRAL CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES INC
    2× · 2018–2022 · $25k · revenue +65%
  • EH
    EVANGEL HOME INC
    3× · 2019–2022 · $20k · revenue +27%

Funded once

  • FC
    FAMILY CARE
    one grant, 2021 · $11k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $3k
  • BT
    BREAKING THE CHAINSgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $2k · revenue +114%
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
Community Legal Aid Socal

To provide civil legal services to low-income individuals and to promote equal access to the justice system through advocacy, legal counseling, innovative self-help services, in depth legal representation, community education, and economic…

Crime & Legal
2
Inner City Law Center

In 2024, Inner City Law Center, ICLC, served over 3,400 people, helping vulnerable Angelenos to remain in their homes and recover nearly $20.5 million in financial benefits.

Crime & Legal
3
Legal Services of Northern California

To empower the poor to identify and defeat the causes and effects of poverty within their communities by providing high quality civil legal services to the poor, seniors, and persons with disabilities in over twenty three counties in n.…

Crime & Legal
4
California Association of Food Banks

California association of food banks (cafb) is a non-profit public benefit corporation located in oakland, california. together with its 41-member foodbanks, cafb is the largest charitable hunger-relief and anti-hunger leader in the state.…

Food & Nutrition
5
Consumer Attorneys of California

To advance the science of jurisprudence; to establish a closer relationship of the members with the state bar association of california; to promote the administration of justice and the uniformity of legislation and judicial decisions; to…

—
6
Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino Inc

Legal aid society of san bernardino improves the lives of those in need in san bernardino and riverside county by providing representation, counseling, education, and legal services regardless of ability to pay.

—
7
San Luis Obispo Legal Assistance Foundation

San luis obispo legal assistance foundation's mission is to provide legal services and resources to people in need.

Crime & Legal
8
Collective Legal Services Eviction Defense Center

Legal Aid

Crime & Legal
9
California Rural Legal Assistance Inc

To provide legal services through community lawyering, seeking a more just and equitable world.

Crime & Legal
10
Children's Law Center of California

Children's law center of california (clc) provides legal representation for children and youth impacted by abuse and neglect. we advocate for our clients by supporting families; fighting for reunification, permanence, educational…

—
11
Santa Clara County Bar Association

To serve the legal profession and the geneal welfare of the people of santa clara county.

—
12
California Chamber of Commerce

Represent members and cal employers to members of cal legislature and other agencies of state government through in-house legislative analysts, lobbying staff, and contract lobbyists. cal chamber publishes books and software related to…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Central California Legal Services Inc; the most unlike its peers is Grand Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the 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 18 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATIONAL UNION FOR DEMOCRACY IN IRA: $30,500 · OtherNATIONAL UNION FOR DEMOCRACY IN IRAVALLEY PUBLIC RADIO: $24,100 · OtherVALLEY PUBLIC RADIOFRESNO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION: $11,000 · OtherFRESNO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATIONCOMMUNITY FOOD BANK INC: $10,500 · OtherCOMMUNITY FOOD BANK INCFAMILY CARE: $10,500 · OtherFAMILY CAREGRAND INC: $4,500 · Other+7 more: $16,550 · Other+7 moreCENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANK: $92,000 · Food & NutritionCENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANKFOOD BANK COALITION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: $10,000 · Food & NutritionFOOD BANK COALITION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNT…CENTRAL CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES INC: $25,000 · Crime & LegalCENTRAL CAL…EVANGEL HOME INC: $20,298 · Human ServicesBREAKING THE CHAINS: $2,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$107,650Food & Nutrition$102,000Crime & Legal$25,000Human Services$20,298Housing & Shelter$2,000

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 budgetCENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANK: $92,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCENTRAL CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetEVANGEL HOME INC: $20,298 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetFRESNO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION: $11,000 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetFOOD BANK COALITION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGRAND INC: $4,500 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetSan Joaquin College of Law: $3,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBREAKING THE CHAINS: $2,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds CENTRAL CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds EVANGEL HOME INC ↗
  • Who funds FRESNO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds FOOD BANK COALITION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds GRAND INC ↗
  • Who funds San Joaquin College of Law ↗
  • Who funds BREAKING THE CHAINS ↗

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 FoundationWA2.4× affinity6 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 The Kharazi Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Kharazi Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 18 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 Kharazi’s filings →

    More from the funding graph