Skip to content
Gurnani Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Gurnani Foundation

THE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN ORGANIZED EXCLUSIVLY FOR RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL AND LITERARY PURPOSES, THE MAKING OF DISTRIBUTIONS TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT QUALIFY AS EXEMPT AND PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR NEEDY INDIVIDUALS Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check…

$695k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$690k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Human Services$390kCommunity Improvement$70kHealth$20kPhilanthropy$20kReligion$15kInternational$15kRecreation & Sports$13k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $5k
  • $250k+1 grant · $690k
$2,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$903k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SADHU VASWANI CENTER$690,000
SHARE THE WARMTH INC$2,500
KIRTAN WALLAH FOUNDATION$2,000
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: 84% of grant dollars ($454k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 16% that went abroad ($89k) is mapped below.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY25–25, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SHARE THE WARMTH INC: $3k → 16%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: 16% of all-years giving ($89k)

1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
India$89k · 2 grants
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.
03Its 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
Keralink International Inc

Keralink international works to end avoidable blindness by developing, delivering, and scaling affordable solutions for all, powered by innovative technology and partnerships.

Health
2
MRIGlobal

To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.

Science & Tech
3
Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation

The samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…

—
4
Rhode Island Quality Institute

To represent every constituency of healthcare leadership, as well as health insurance, consumer and public interest. to work collaboratively, come up with innovative solutions, champion changes throughout our organizations, and dedicate…

Health
5
The California Medical Innovations Institute Inc

The Institute is a scientific research center dedicated to conducting basic and applied research to advance the understanding of human disease and the improvement of human health. The Institute fosters an innovative research environment…

Education
6
Health Care Without Harm

The mission of health care without harm (hcwh) is to transform health care worldwide so that it reduces its environmental footprint, becomes a community anchor for sustainability and a leader in the global movement for environmental health…

Environment
7
Handicap International

Handicap international dba humanity & inclusion (hi) works with people with disabilities and people living in situations of vulnerability, including poverty, exclusion, conflict, and disaster.

International
8
International Biomedical Research Alliance

Our mission is to invest in and accelerate the development of the most promising future leaders in biomedical research with global impact.

Health
9
Sanitation and Health Rights in India

SHRI fights alongside communities to end open defecation as a key step in an ongoing struggle for health equity and soical and economic justice.

International
10
International Aids Vaccine Initiative Inc

A global nonprofit biomedical research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.

International
11
International Center for Research On Women

The international center for research for women (icrw) is a global research institute, with a mission to advance rights and opportunities for women, girls, and structurally excluded populations with actionable evidence and solutions.

International
12
Kfhpw Holdings

Supporting kaiser permanente organizations which provide high-quality, affordable health care services to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Action Against Hunger - Usa; the most unlike its peers is Kirtan Wallah 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.
04the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 17 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SADHU VASWANI CENTER: $1,080,000 · OtherSADHU VASWANI CENTERIndividual grant recipient: $69,449 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+5 more: $36,305 · OtherSANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA: $5,000 · HealthCANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $5,000 · HealthRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE OF NEW YORK INC: $5,000 · HealthTHE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH: $5,000 · HealthHELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL: $5,000 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL HUMAN BENEFIT SERVICESINC: $5,000 · InternationalACTION AGAINST HUNGER - USA: $5,000 · InternationalRIVERSIDE PARK CONSERVANCY INC: $13,000 · EnvironmentSHARETHEWARMTHINC: $2,500 · Human ServicesKIRTAN WALLAH FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$1,185,754Health$20,000International$15,000Environment$13,000Human Services$2,500Arts & Culture$2,000

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 budgetRIVERSIDE PARK CONSERVANCY INC: $13,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE OF NEW YORK INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL HUMAN BENEFIT SERVICESINC: $5,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetACTION AGAINST HUNGER - USA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetInterfaith Community Services Inc: $305 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Gurnani Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gurnani Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–40%
    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 17 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 Gurnani’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