· Private foundation
Gupta Family 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 FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k11 grants · $30k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $106k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
- $250k+1 grant · $285k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Boys & Girls Club Greater Nashua | $285,000 |
| Akshaya Patra Foundation USA | $100,000 |
| Paradada Pardadi Educational Society | $43,500 |
| Vision-Aid Inc | $25,000 |
| Derryfield Fund | $16,500 |
| Bridges Domestic & Sexual Violence Support Services Inc | $11,012 |
| Pratham USA | $10,000 |
| Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund | $7,000 |
| National Multiple Sclerosis Society - Greater New England Chapter | $5,100 |
| Boston Cardiac Foundation | $5,000 |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology | $5,000 |
| Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter | $3,500 |
| New Hampshire Charitable Foundation | $2,000 |
| The Hestia Fund | $750 |
| Individual grant recipient | $750 |
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 human-services grants (FY21–22, $13k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 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
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.
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 +27% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 5 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, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $45k 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
- BGBoys & Girls Club of Greater Nashua Inc3× · 2021–2025 · $315k · revenue +114%
- APAKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION3× · 2021–2025 · $128k · revenue +46%
- VIVISION-AID INCORPORATED5× · 2021–2025 · $39k · revenue +148%
Funded once
- MEMassachusetts Eye & Earone grant, 2024 · $50k
- IIINDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue -42%
- UWUNITED WAY OF GREATER NASHUA INCone grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue -18%
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,…
The specific purpose, mission, and activity of the corporation is to secure funding for promoting education, research, technology development, startup incubation, acceleration, and translational research at the indian institute of science…
Shiv Nadar Foundation provides access to higher education tounderprivileged students and funds to other charitable organizations to supporteducation, research, social policies for women empowerment, affordable healthcareservices, medical…
The purpose of this corporation is to conduct activities through a holistic approach primarily for the benefit of disenfranchised children and their families in India and elsewhere in the world, including for the following specific…
Our mission is to catalyze socio-econimic change in India through the education of underpriviledged children.
Facilitating international charitable donations to support urgent and high-impact needs in India, including healthcare, education, livelihoods, and social welfare, by enabling U.S. donors to give to vetted causes through Milaap.org.
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…
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…
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Akshaya Patra Foundation (Usa) and the most unlike its peers is Tie 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 25 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% 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 13% 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.
26 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. 26 of the 36 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 Boys & Girls Club of Greater Nashua Inc ↗
- Who funds AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA) ↗
- Who funds PRATHAM USA ↗
- Who funds PARDADA PARDADI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds VISION-AID INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF GREATER NASHUA INC ↗
- Who funds Sewa International Inc ↗
- Who funds BRIDGES DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SUPPORT SERVICES ↗
- Who funds BOSTON CARDIAC FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN INDIA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds New Hampshire Charitable Foundation ↗
- Who funds TIE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NASHUA SOUP KITCHEN & SHELTER INC ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO WOMEN AGAINST RAPE ↗
- Who funds The Hestia Fund ↗
- Who funds DESAI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NASHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Nitya Seva USA ↗
- Who funds CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds LUNGEVITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN PARKINSON DISEASE ASSOC ↗
- Who funds THE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH ↗
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: Sawhney Family Fdn Dima-Etf · John P Stabile Family Foundation · Agnes M Lindsay Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · Eastern Bank Foundation · Fidelity Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust
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 Family 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% 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 Gupta Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Gupta Family Foundation 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.