Skip to content
Gita K Shah Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Gita K Shah Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$49k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0183% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$93kHealth$51kFood & Nutrition$40kEducation$22kAnimals$6kArts & Culture$3kHuman Services$500Other$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $24k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
$5,290
Median grant
4
States reached
$970k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$25,000
MANAV SADHNA$8,000
JAIN SOCIETY OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON$5,290
ARHAM CHARITIES$5,000
UNIVERSITY OF MD CAPITAL REGION FOUNDATION$5,000
BAPS SWAMINARAYAN SANSTHA$1,001
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 (FY21–21, $500) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%BAPS CHARITIES: $500 → 11%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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$173k · 4 repeat orgs$85k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
16

Total granted

$173k
$75k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-38%
+43%

Still filing today

25%
31%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthInternationalHuman ServicesAnimalsOther
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

  • JS
    JAIN SOCIETY OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
    8× · 2017–2025 · $89k
  • MS
    MANAV SADHNA
    4× · 2022–2025 · $40k · revenue -38%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2023–2025 · $40k

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CAPITAL REGION HEALTH FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $25k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MD CAPITAL REGION
    one grant, 2020 · $21k
  • PG
    PORTSMOUTH GENERAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue +49%
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
Global Heartcare Foundation
Health
2
United Health Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Aparnas Health Foundation
Philanthropy
4
International Health Services Foundation
Health
5
Cardinal Health Foundation
Education
6
World Health Foundation
—
7
Global Health Research Foundation
—
8
Open Heart Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Tara Health Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Richmond Memorial Health Foundation
Health
11
Metro Health Foundation
—
12
Hearts for Hearts Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Univ of Md Capital Region Health Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Portsmouth General Hospital 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

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 22 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)
8/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JAIN SOCIETY OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: $88,988 · OtherJAIN SOCIETY OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTONMANAV SADHNA: $40,000 · OtherMANAV SADHNAIndividual grant recipient: $40,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CAPITAL REGION HEALTH FOUNDATION: $25,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CAPITAL REGION HEALTH FOUNDATIONUNIVERSITY OF MD CAPITAL REGION: $21,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MD CAPITAL REGIONPORTSMOUTH GENERAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $15,000 · OtherPORTSMOUTH GENERAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION+9 more: $11,288 · OtherDimensions Healthcare Associates Inc: $5,000 · HealthUNIV OF MD CAPITAL REGION HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Health+2 more: $275 · HealthArham Charities: $5,000 · InternationalBAPS CHARITIES INC: $500 · Human ServicesSAVE THE TAILS INC: $500 · Animals
Other$241,276Health$10,275International$5,000Human Services$500Animals$500

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 budgetMANAV SADHNA: $40,000 over 4y, 6.7% of budgetPORTSMOUTH GENERAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetDimensions Healthcare Associates Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNIV OF MD CAPITAL REGION HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetBAPS CHARITIES INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $25 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 MANAV SADHNA ↗
  • Who funds PORTSMOUTH GENERAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Arham Charities ↗
  • Who funds Dimensions Healthcare Associates Inc ↗
  • Who funds UNIV OF MD CAPITAL REGION HEALTH FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds BAPS CHARITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds SAVE THE TAILS INC ↗
  • Who funds OPEN MY HEART FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗

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 Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.8× affinity5 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 Gita K Shah Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gita K Shah Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%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
    3get 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 · 0–5%
    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 22 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 Gita K Shah’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