Skip to content
Bhanuv at a glance

· Private foundation

Bhanuv

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.

$10k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$404
Median grant
4
States reached
$195k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMBAJI USASHREE SHAKTI MANDIR$3,974
GOKULDHAM FOUNDATION$2,216
SHREYAS FOUNDATION$1,280
IPCOWALA DAY SCHOOL$880
VRAJ PMVS OF NORTH AMERICA$451
AMBAJI USASHREE SHAKTI MANDIR$404
PULMONARY FIBROSIS FOUNDATION$250
GENIUS ENGLISH SCHOOL$233
DIVINE LIFE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL$228
Individual grant recipient$226
SANSKRUTI FOUNDATION$150
SHIV MANDIR OF ATLANTA$51
02The need
02

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

US giving: 73% of grant dollars ($4k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 27% that went abroad ($1k) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY24–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 59% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%VRAJ PMVS OF NORTH AMERICA: $451 → 12%AATITHYA SANDIPANI VIDHYANIKETAN: $97 → 18%ISHA FOUNDATION INDIA: $253 → 15%SHREYAS FOUNDATION: $1k → 17%SANSKRUTI FOUNDATION: $150 → 7%GOKULDHAM FOUNDATION: $2k → 9%AMBAJI USASHREE SHAKTI MANDIR: $4k → 15%PULMONARY FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: $250 → 14%GAYATRI CHETNA CENTER: $51 → 8%AJ CHARITABLE TRUST: $60 → 17%GOKULDHAM FOUNDATION: $2k → 9%AMBAJI USASHREE SHAKTI MANDIR: $404 → 15%SHIV MANDIR OF ATLANTA: $51 → 9%AMBAJI USASHREE SHAKTI MANDIR: $202 → 15%BAPS SHRI SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR: $52 → 9%HINDU TEMPLE: $787 → 15%SIDDHI VINAYAK MANDHIR: $18 → 9%SAI TEMPLE NASSTA: $431 → 9%SAI TEMPLE NASSTA: $226 → 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.

Beyond the US: 27% of all-years giving ($1k)

1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
India$1k · 4 grants
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

63%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$10k · 3 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
8

Total granted

$10k
$2k

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’24’25
HealthReligionOther
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

  • AU
    AMBAJI USASHREE SHAKTI MANDIR
    2× · 2024–2025 · $5k
  • GF
    GOKULDHAM FOUNDATION
    2× · 2024–2025 · $4k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2024–2025 · $657

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $954
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $787
  • IF
    ISHA FOUNDATION INDIA
    one grant, 2024 · $253
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
03the grantee network

2 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. 2 of the 19 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)
2/2
Grantees still filing
0/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMBAJI USASHREE SHAKTI MANDIR: $4,580 · OtherAMBAJI USASHREE SHAKTI MANDIRGOKULDHAM FOUNDATION: $4,451 · OtherGOKULDHAM FOUNDATIONSHREYAS FOUNDATION: $1,280 · OtherSHREYAS FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $954 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIPCOWALA DAY SCHOOL: $880 · OtherIPCOWALA DAY SCHOOLIndividual grant recipient: $787 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $657 · Other+10 more: $1,494 · Other+10 morePULMONARY FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: $250 · HealthSANSKRUTI FOUNDATION: $150 · Religion
Other$15,083Health$250Religion$150

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPULMONARY FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSANSKRUTI FOUNDATION: $150 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 PULMONARY FIBROSIS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SANSKRUTI FOUNDATION ↗

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 19 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 Bhanuv’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