Skip to content

· Private foundation

DDPuri Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$154k
Granted FY2021
6
Grants FY2021
1
States reached
$90k
Largest
01What it funds
0175% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2021.

Education$609kPhilanthropy$518kHealth$461kInternational$14kHuman Services$10kReligion$5kRecreation & Sports$151Other$0
02FY2021 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2021

  • Under $10k3 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $52k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $90k
$18,165
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Windle Charitable Trust$90,000
Patiala School for the Deaf- Blind$33,792
Individual grant recipient$18,165
Amar Singh Kamboj Charitable Trust$6,728
Friends of Sparsh$3,000
Individual grant recipient$2,691
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.

US giving: 3% of grant dollars ($47k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 97% that went abroad ($1.6M) is mapped below.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–21, $12k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 50% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 8%AIM FOR SEVA: $3k → 12%FRIENDS OF SPARSH: $3k → 6%Friends of Sparsh: $3k → 6%HINDU AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICES: $3k → 8%HINDU AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICES: $1k → 8%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: 97% of all-years giving ($1.6M)

3 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
India$1.1M · 15 grants
Kenya$462k · 5 grants
St Lucia$1k · 1 grant
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.
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 19% of DDPuri Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

DDPuri Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 97% directed abroad (not shown)
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.

61%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$999k · 11 repeat orgs$640k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2021, 8 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
11

Total granted

$999k
$586k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+17%
+32%

Still filing today

36%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $55k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21
Human ServicesHealthOther
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

  • WC
    WINDLE CHARITABLE TRUST
    5× · 2017–2021 · $462k
  • SF
    SOCIETY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED
    2× · 2018–2019 · $454k
  • AS
    AMAR SINGH KAMBOJ CHARITABLE TRUST
    5× · 2017–2021 · $41k

Funded once

  • PS
    PATIALA SCHOOL OF DEAF AND BLINDSOCIETY FOR WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED
    one grant, 2017 · $575k
  • AI
    ALL INDIA MOVEMENT FOR SEVA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $3k · revenue +32%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $2k
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
Ankur International

Assisting financially challenged patients with life threatening emergency medical conditions. It also helps building charitable healthcare clinics free schools building and running orphanages and provide scholarships to poor needy students…

International
2
I Mission

Helping the needy people in india and us .

—
3
Indo American Development and Health Organization
International
4
Child Health Foundation

Support and Research Major Problems in Child Health Globally

International
5
Cure a Little Heart Foundation

Provide medical care for indegent children

Health
6
Intelehealth Inc

Intelehealth leverages open-source technology for Governments, NGOs and Hospitals to seamlessly connect 'hard to reach' populations with high quality primary healthcare. Health organizations all over the world have used our technology to…

International
7
Sri Shankara Cancer Foundation Usa

Sri Shankara cancer foundation is a non-profit organization whose core focus is on cure and prevention of cancer. The foundation is committed to conceive, build, and sustain programs and initiates aimed at helping the common man. Very…

Health
8
Aroh Us

Aroh, with our generous donors and the ever helpful community, aims to increase the survival rate of childhood cancer in india.aroh was founded with the vision to provide holistic care for children with cancer and aims to provide the best…

—
9
Solace Charities Inc

During 2024, Solace Charities organized multiple fund raiser events, increased awareness, raised donations and transferred funds to its affiliate Solace.

Human Services
10
Dr Samin Sharma Family Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Ananta Giving Foundation

To provide support for charitable and educational organizations and initiatives in the united states and abroad, including but not limited to organizations and initiatives focused on providing and facilitating access to high quality…

Philanthropy
12
Aparnas Health Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Jude Children's Research Hospital Inc; the most unlike its peers is Cota - Children's Organ Transplant Association. 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 26 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)
1
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

PATIALA SCHOOL OF DEAF AND BLINDSOCIETY FOR WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED: $574,773 · OtherPATIALA SCHOOL OF DEAF AND BLINDSOCIETY FOR WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPEDWINDLE CHARITABLE TRUST: $462,000 · OtherWINDLE CHARITABLE TRUSTSOCIETY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED: $453,931 · OtherSOCIETY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED+17 more: $136,436 · Other+17 moreFRIENDS OF SPARSH INC: $6,000 · Human ServicesHINDU AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $3,500 · Human ServicesALL INDIA MOVEMENT FOR SEVA INC: $2,500 · Human ServicesINDIA DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF FUND INC: $11,700 · InternationalST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $250 · HealthUNITED BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION INC: $30 · Health
Other$1,627,140Human Services$12,000International$11,700Health$280

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 budgetINDIA DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF FUND INC: $11,700 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF SPARSH INC: $6,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetCOTA - Children's Organ Transplant Association: $6,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHINDU AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $3,500 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetALL INDIA MOVEMENT FOR SEVA INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC: $725 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION INC: $30 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 INDIA DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF SPARSH INC ↗
  • Who funds COTA - Children's Organ Transplant Association ↗
  • Who funds HINDU AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds ALL INDIA MOVEMENT FOR SEVA INC ↗
  • Who funds SMILE TRAIN INC ↗
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION INC ↗

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 FoundationWA3.3× affinity4 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 DDPuri Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from DDPuri Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%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
    3get no government money at all
    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 26 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2022) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2021, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on DDPuri’s filings →

    More from the funding graph