· Private foundation
Arj Charitable Foundation Trust
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 12 grants below total $229,973 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $243,473 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $13,500 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k8 grants · $13k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $51k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $166k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| VEDIC HERITAGE INC | $166,301 |
| RAVI AND NAINA PATEL FOUNDATION | $31,000 |
| JAIPUR FOOT INC | $10,000 |
| EKAL VIDYALAYA FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| BAPS CHARITIES INC | $5,000 |
| CHINMAYA MISSION NEW YORK | $5,000 |
| ARUNACHALA ASHRAMA NEW YORK | $1,001 |
| NYU LANGONE HEALTH | $1,000 |
| SHRI PADMAVATI SHAKTE PEETH | $251 |
| LITTLE SHELTER | $200 |
| NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP FUND INC | $120 |
| NASSAU COUNTY POLICE ACTIVITY LEAGUE INC. | $100 |
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.
14 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k 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
- JFJAIPUR FOOT INC3× · 2022–2024 · $30k · revenue +193%
BAPS CHARITIES INC2× · 2022–2024 · $8k · revenue +1%- IFISHA FOUNDATION INC3× · 2019–2022 · $7k · revenue +91%
Funded once
- VIVEERAYATAN INTERNATIONAL INCone grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue -43%
- APAKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue +134%
- PJPANDIT JASRAJ INSTITUTE OF MUSICone grant, 2022 · $4k
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.
Public education
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Baps Charities Inc and the most unlike its peers is Barkha Dance Company Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 30 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 RAVI AND NAINA PATEL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JAIPUR FOOT INC ↗
- Who funds VEERAYATAN INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds BAPS CHARITIES INC ↗
- Who funds ISHA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA) ↗
- Who funds SANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA ↗
- Who funds Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Charitable Service Trust ↗
- Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION OF INDIANS IN AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds SHRI PADMAVATI SHAKTI PEETH INC ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP FUND INC ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds Nassau County Police Activity League Inc ↗
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: Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Arj Charitable Foundation Trust?
Find your warmest path to Arj Charitable Foundation Trust 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.