· Private foundation
Drs Kiran & Pallavi Patel Family Foundation Inc
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 67% of DRS KIRAN & PALLAVI PATEL FAMILY FOUNDATION INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANC | $1 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your US giving — 58% of grant dollars ($11M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 42% that went abroad ($7.8M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–19, $13k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
Beyond the US — 42% of all-years giving ($7.8M)
4 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +104% since the first grant, against +45% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down.
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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
University of South Florida Foundation Inc4× · 2017–2023 · $4.9M · revenue +132%- DADinesh and Kalpana Patel Foundation2× · 2017–2018 · $73k · revenue +67%
- ACAFRICA COLLEGE FUND2× · 2019–2023 · $48k · revenue +305%
Funded once
- AOAUROVEDA OPERATING FOUNDATIONone grant, 2019 · $2.5M
- IGIIT Gandhinagar Foundationone grant, 2017 · $400k · revenue -37%
- VSVEERAYATAN SCHOOLone grant, 2017 · $360k
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.
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,…
To promote the understanding of india's cultural traditions, universal understanding and harmony; to publish the encyclopedia of hinduism; to organize lectures and seminars on various aspects of indian traditions; charitable activities…
To promote education in the field of medical, engineering, management, computer software, hardware and information technology by establishing school, college, institution and education and research centre for upliftment of society, with a…
Public education
Education
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hindu American Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Dinesh and Kalpana Patel Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 21 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 27% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 17% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
21 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. 21 of the 67 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 University of South Florida Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds IIT Gandhinagar Foundation ↗
- Who funds ANOOPAM MISSION INC ↗
- Who funds PATEL INSTITUTE FOR INNOVATION INC ↗
- Who funds GULF COAST COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Dinesh and Kalpana Patel Foundation ↗
- Who funds HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Nova Southeastern University Inc ↗
- Who funds The Leonardo ↗
- Who funds AFRICA COLLEGE FUND ↗
- Who funds THE HOWARD UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds CLEARWATER FOR YOUTH INC ↗
- Who funds CHARITY POLO CLASSIC INC ↗
- Who funds CHINMAYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION 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 · Charities Aid Foundation America · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Drs Kiran & Pallavi Patel Family Foundation Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Tampa Metropolitan Area Young Men's Christian Association Inc — 4% of income from government
- Volunteer Florida Foundation Inc — 2% of income from government
- Nova Southeastern University Inc — 2% of income from government
- Florida Dream Center Inc — 0% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Drs Kiran & Pallavi Patel Family Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Drs Kiran & Pallavi Patel Family Foundation Inc 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.