· Private foundation
Kanak & Prabha Golia 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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 92% of KANAK & PRABHA GOLIA FOUNDATION’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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k12 grants · $42k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $163k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $226k
- $250k+1 grant · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SHRI NAKODA PARAS BHERAV | $250,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $170,627 |
| VEERAYATAN INTERNATIONAL | $55,501 |
| MANAV MANDIR MISSION | $40,100 |
| STONYBROOK SCHOOL | $33,596 |
| RAVI AND NAINA FOUNDATION | $32,000 |
| STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY | $26,853 |
| JAIN CENTER OF AMERICA | $20,020 |
| ARIHANTA INSTITUTE | $10,000 |
| N Y IT | $8,317 |
| AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ANTIGUA | $8,000 |
| CUNYEDU | $6,000 |
| SHEOWS CARES FOUNDATION | $5,500 |
| JAIN TEMPLE OF NEW YORK | $5,148 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,760 |
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 — 41% of grant dollars ($1.9M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 59% that went abroad ($2.8M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY18–21, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 2% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
Beyond the US — 59% of all-years giving ($2.8M)
5 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.
46 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2025, 30 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $36k 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
- TSTHE STONY BROOK SCHOOL4× · 2022–2025 · $133k · revenue +6%
- NYNEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY5× · 2017–2025 · $92k · revenue +23%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF THE CUMBERLANDS INC2× · 2018–2019 · $32k · revenue +90%
Funded once
BABSON COLLEGEone grant, 2021 · $34k · revenue +18%- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $30k
- UOUNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIAone grant, 2023 · $29k
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.
Our mission as per the by-laws : a) the board adopts a strategic plan that includes goals which will lead to acquiring accreditation recognized by us department of education and maintaining it. this includes getting an accreditation from…
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,…
Dedicated to the advancement of knowledge about india and the promotion of intellectual engagement with india in american universities by providing research fellowship support, training in indian languages, knowledge of indian culture, and…
Public education
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Share and Care Foundation for India and the most unlike its peers is Blossom Charity Inc. 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 29 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
34 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. 34 of the 117 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 THE STONY BROOK SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION OF INDIANS IN AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds BABSON COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF THE CUMBERLANDS INC ↗
- Who funds NARGIS DUTT MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ARIHANTA INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SHEOWS CARES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BLOSSOM CHARITY INC ↗
- Who funds New England College ↗
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: Verizon Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Kanak & Prabha Golia 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.
- Babson College — 3% 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 Kanak & Prabha Golia Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Kanak & Prabha Golia 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.