Skip to content
Champaben Himatlal Sangani Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Champaben Himatlal Sangani Charitable Foundation

Its FY2023 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 FY2023
1
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0179% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Religion$113kEducation$65kInternational$10kHealth$9kCommunity Improvement$5kArts & Culture$3kCivil Rights$1kFood & Nutrition$1kOther$0
02FY2023 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$756k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DFW Gujarati Samaj$10,000
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 (FY17–17, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%TEXAS INDO AMERICAN PHYSICIANS SOCIETY: $3k → 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.
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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$199k · 8 repeat orgs$48k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +142% since the first grant, against +79% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2023, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
16

Total granted

$199k
$48k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+142%
+79%

Still filing today

75%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’23
Arts & CultureHealthInternationalPhilanthropyFood & NutritionReligionOther
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

  • DG
    DFW GUJARATI SAMAJ INC
    4× · 2018–2023 · $35k · revenue +142% · 57% of their budget
  • CM
    CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION
    2× · 2019–2021 · $4k · revenue +351%
  • AP
    AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION
    2× · 2018–2019 · $3k · revenue +151%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
  • EV
    Ekal Vidyalaya
    one grant, 2018 · $5k
  • WG
    WHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +187%
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
Texas India Forum

To encourage cooperation between the usa and india and advance the shared values of democracy, inclusive economic development and mutual respect.

—
2
Radha Govind Dham Dallas

Religious Organization

Religion
3
Bengali Association of Greater Dfw

Promote and sustain cultural, educational, religious, literary and charitable activities on behalf of the bengali community in dfw area.

—
4
Gujaratis of North America
Arts & Culture
5
Telangana Peoples Association of Dallas

The nbsp;purpose nbsp;of nbsp;telangana nbsp;peoples nbsp;associatiom nbsp;of nbsp;dallas nbsp;(tpad) nbsp;is nbsp;to nbsp;conduct nbsp;telengana nbsp;( nbsp;a nbsp;region nbsp;in nbsp;india) nbsp;festivals nbsp;and nbsp;events nbsp;like…

Arts & Culture
6
Akhand Jyoti Usa

Eradicate cureable blindness, girls education, and women empowerment in the rural india

Health
7
Sampradaya Usa

Foster teachings of hindu religion

Religion
8
Flower Mound Hindu Temple

to promote and practice the ideals of Hindu religion through worship, education, and cultural activities, while striving for spiritual richness and human excellence

Religion
9
Sindhi Association of North America
—
10
Sharada Educational Foundation

To promote, foster, encourage, publish, teach, and disseminate sanatan vedic philosophy, as expressed in the classical principals of the vedanta.

Education
11
Hindu Temple of Frisco

The temple is organized to have a place of worship. operated exclusively for religious poojas/archanas, charitable and education purpose.

Religion
12
Indian Cultural Heritage Foundation

Ichf's primary exempt purpose is to promote intercultural awareness by providing a platform for the interaction between indian and american cultures through workshops, presentations, and performances.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Saurashtra Patel Cultural Samaj; the most unlike its peers is Wheels Global Foundation. 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

13 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. 13 of the 24 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
9/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SAURASHTRA PATEL CULTURAL SAMAJ: $57,000 · Arts & CultureSAURASHTRA PATEL CULTURAL SAMAJDFW GUJARATI SAMAJ INC: $35,000 · Arts & CultureDFW GUJARATI SAMAJ INC+1 more: $3,000 · Arts & CultureSWAMINARAYAN GURUKUL-USA: $18,000 · OtherSWAMINARAYAN GURUKUL-USAIndividual grant recipient: $15,001 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientEkal Vidyalaya: $5,000 · OtherEkal VidyalayaUS India Chamber of Commerce Foundation DFW: $5,000 · OtherUS India Chamber of Commerce F…Individual grant recipient: $3,000 · Other+7 more: $5,500 · Other+7 morePRATHAM USA: $65,000 · PhilanthropyPRATHAM USAWHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATION: $5,000 · InternationalSHRIMAD RAJCHANDRA LOVE AND CARE -USA INC: $1,000 · InternationalCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $4,000 · HealthSANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA: $2,000 · HealthAKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA): $3,300 · Food & NutritionTEXAS INDO-AMERICAN PHYSICIANS SOCIETY SW CHAPTER: $3,000 · Human ServicesDFW INDIAN CULTURAL SOCIETY: $2,500 · Religion
Arts & Culture$95,000Other$66,501Philanthropy$65,000International$6,000Health$6,000Food & Nutrition$3,300Human Services$3,000Religion$2,500

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 budgetPRATHAM USA: $65,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetSAURASHTRA PATEL CULTURAL SAMAJ: $57,000 over 4y, 3.9% of budgetDFW GUJARATI SAMAJ INC: $35,000 over 4y, 57% of budgetWHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA): $3,300 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTEXAS INDO-AMERICAN PHYSICIANS SOCIETY SW CHAPTER: $3,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetINDIA ASSOCIATION OF NORTH TEXAS: $3,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetDFW INDIAN CULTURAL SOCIETY: $2,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSHRIMAD RAJCHANDRA LOVE AND CARE -USA INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetIGIVECATHOLIC: $500 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.

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.

Verizon FoundationNetwork for GoodThe Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Verizon FoundationNJ11.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Verizon Foundation · Network for Good · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Champaben Himatlal Sangani Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Champaben Himatlal Sangani Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 24 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Champaben Himatlal Sangani’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