Skip to content
Chintu Gudiya Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Chintu Gudiya 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.

$880k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$800k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Philanthropy$3.4MEducation$163kInternational$85kCommunity Improvement$52kEnvironment$15k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $70k
  • $250k+1 grant · $800k
$25,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DARSA$800,000
Individual grant recipient$25,000
Individual grant recipient$25,000
AVANTI FELLOW USA$20,000
360PLUS FOUNDATION$7,500
Individual grant recipient$2,000
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 (FY23–23, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%THE AASHA FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.6M · 3 repeat orgs$130k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +125% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
6

Total granted

$3.6M
$50k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+125%
+8%

Still filing today

100%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $80k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalEducationHuman ServicesHealthEnvironmentOther
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

  • D
    DASRA
    4× · 2021–2025 · $3.4M · revenue +125%
  • GP
    GATEWAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
    3× · 2021–2023 · $125k · revenue +17%
  • US
    UPAYA SOCIAL VENTURES
    3× · 2021–2023 · $60k · revenue +281%

Funded once

  • ST
    SAVE THE CHILD FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $15k
  • TA
    THE AASHA FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +8%
  • HI
    Health in Harmonygraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +52%
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
Nalanda 20

Improve excellence and access in higher education. Current focus is on India. Thus, Nalanda 2.0's current focus is to make India's higher education system world-class by building a world-class multidisciplinary research university,…

Education
2
Avasara Foundation Fka the Leadership Foundation of India

Form 990 - organization's mission we are a non-profit organization whose mission is to invest in and empower the next generation of women leaders in india. we primarily carry out our mission by supporting the students from india…

Education
3
Annapurna Global Foundation
Philanthropy
4
Dakshana Foundation

The Foundation is a philanthropic foundation focused on alleviating poverty. It is focused on providing world-class educational opportunities to economically and socially disadvantaged gifted children from impoverished rural backgrounds in…

Education
5
The School for Global Thinkers

Our mission is to challenge and nurture young women to thrive in future global markets through personalized STEM advanced academics. Through a supportive small school and single-gender environment, project-based learning, and STEM advanced…

Education
6
Ja Africa

The mission of ja africa is to inspire and prepare young people in africa to succeed in a global economy.

Education
7
Farmers for Forests Inc

The mission of Farmers for Forests (F4F) is to restore and protect green cover in India in close partnership with farmers and indigenous communities. All the on-ground work is enabled by AI and multi-spectral drone technology and satellite…

Human Services
8
Akshaya Patra Foundation (Usa)

The mission of the foundation is to simultaneously address childhood hunger and malnutrition and to promote education for children throughout india.

Food & Nutrition
9
Shadhika Project

Shadhika believes in a future where each person in India can choose their own path to meaning, purpose, and happiness. Through global philanthropy and in-country programming, Shadhika believes that education is the most effective vehicle…

—
10
Educate Girls

Educate Girls promotes and protects the right of girls to a quality education and works by supporting partners in geographies where the need is greatest to mobilize communities, enroll girls into school and improve learning outcomes. Our…

International
11
Arihanta Institute

Arihanta academys mission is to build a world-class online institution for deeper learning of the jain tradition, its principles, and how these principles apply to daily life for the benefit and well-being of individuals and society in…

Education
12
Global Academy Foundation % Walter Link
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Avanti Fellows Usa; the most unlike its peers is Green Our Planet. 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

10 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. 10 of the 13 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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DASRA: $3,438,383 · InternationalDASRA+2 more: $67,500 · InternationalGATEWAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $125,000 · EducationAVANTI FELLOWS USA: $20,000 · EducationIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherSAVE THE CHILD FOUNDATION: $15,000 · OtherLOWELL HIGH SCHOOL PTA: $10,000 · Other+2 more: $2,200 · OtherTHE AASHA FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Human ServicesHealth in Harmony: $10,000 · HealthGREEN OUR PLANET: $5,000 · Environment
International$3,505,883Education$145,000Other$77,200Human Services$10,000Health$10,000Environment$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDASRA: $3,438,383 over 4y, 7.2% of budgetGATEWAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $125,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetUPAYA SOCIAL VENTURES: $60,000 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetTHE AASHA FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetHealth in Harmony: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLOWELL HIGH SCHOOL PTA: $10,000 over 1y, 6.9% of budget360PLUS FOUNDATION: $7,500 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetGREEN OUR PLANET: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE FAMILY GIVING TREE: $200 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.

National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA10.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Chintu Gudiya Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chintu Gudiya Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 13 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 Chintu Gudiya’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