· Private foundation
Gupta Charitable 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2024–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $5,627 |
| DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING | $3,000 |
| BAY AREA CANCER CONNECTIONS | $500 |
| PINK RIBBON GOOD INC | $500 |
| CARING HANDS FOUNDATION INC | $250 |
| CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | $250 |
| CANCER CAREPOINT INC | $250 |
| GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF THE GREATER CHATTANOOGA ARE | $150 |
| THE MANKIND PROJECT | $100 |
| BRAHMA KUMARIS WORLD SPIRITUAL ORGANIZATION | $50 |
| SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION | $10 |
| WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC | $10 |
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 — 53% of grant dollars ($6k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 47% that went abroad ($6k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY24–25, $800) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 38% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Beyond the US — 47% of all-years giving ($6k)
1 country, 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.
5 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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, 14% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
- CCCANCER CAREPOINT INC2× · 2024–2025 · $768 · revenue 0%
- BABAY AREA CANCER CONNECTIONS2× · 2024–2025 · $758 · revenue -77%
- CHCARING HANDS FOUNDATION INC2× · 2024–2025 · $500 · revenue +1%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2025 · $6k
- PRPINK RIBBON GOOD INCgraduatedone grant, 2025 · $500 · revenue +438%
- CSCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY San Francisco Bay Areagraduatedone grant, 2025 · $250 · revenue +101%
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.
To help conquer cancer and other diseases through the application of biostatistical principles and innovative data management methods.
To define and advance quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care and prevention so all people can live better lives.
The Breast Cancer Charities of America (BCCA) exists to eliminate breast cancer as a life-threatening illness. We bring together organizations representing all health and social service disciplines in the commitment to establish new and…
Improve the lives of people with cancer and their families through advocacy, research, and patient support, to ensure everyone has an opportunity to prevent, detect, treat, and survive cancer.
To support and empower all affected by gynecologic cancers through education, research, and public awareness.
Dedicated to the early detection and prevention of cervical cancer around the globe for the women who need it most.
The foundation is set up to deliver one program - look good feel better. the mission of this nationwide program is to improve the quality of life of women, men, and teens undergoing cancer treatment by offering advice on how to cope with…
The california dental association is committed to the success of our members in service to their patients and the public.
The Ralph Lauren Center for Cancer Care and Prevention was incorporated in 2002 in the State of New York as a non-for-profit organization to provide individuals, many of whom are medically underserved - with access to the highest quality…
City of Hope's mission is to make hope a reality for all touched by cancer and diabetes. PLEASE SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A CONTINUATION OF OUR MISSION
The Womens Cancer Resource Center improves equitable access to cancer information, support and care.
Commonwealth care alliance, inc.'s mission is to improve the health and well-being of people with significant needs by innovating, coordinating and providing the highest quality, individualized care.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc and the most unlike its peers is Caring Hands Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 12 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 DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds CANCER CAREPOINT INC ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA CANCER CONNECTIONS ↗
- Who funds CARING HANDS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds PINK RIBBON GOOD INC ↗
- Who funds The Mankind Project USA ↗
- Who funds CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY San Francisco Bay Area ↗
- Who funds Chattanooga Goodwill Industries Inc ↗
- Who funds WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Gupta Charitable Foundation 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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.