· Private foundation
Niswarth International Foundation F/K/A Radha and Chirag Patel 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: 41% of NISWARTH INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION F/K/A RADHA AND CHIRAG PATEL 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
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 (FY17–19, $136k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% 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 +95% since the first grant, against +41% for the ones you funded once.
34 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 30 since wound down; 11 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, 27% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $55k 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
- NJNEW JERSEY CITY UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC2× · 2021–2022 · $554k · revenue +2%
- AOART OF LIVING FOUNDATION2× · 2018–2019 · $80k · revenue +117%
- FFFOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE INC2× · 2019–2021 · $50k · revenue +133%
Funded once
- EVEKAL VIDYALAYA FOUNDATION OF USAgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $250k · revenue +41%
- ANAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branchesgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue +39%
- LSLIBERTY SCIENCE CENTERone grant, 2017 · $85k · revenue -8%
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.
The american india foundation(aif) is a nonprofit american development organization that is devoted to accelerating social and economic change in india.
To provide multi-specialty surgical care, humanitarian aid and educational support to people in low- and middle-income countries.
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…
Provide financial assistance to orphanages,old-age homes, provide educational scholarships to orphans, arrange health camps and food drives for orphanages and old-age homes.
Empowering mobilizers like teach for india with intellectual, human, and financial resources to eliminate educational inequity in india.
To support educational opportunities for underserved children in india, and raising support for and awareness of such activities in the united states.
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.
Us-india policy institute (usipi)undertaking policy research on diversity and inclusive developments in india and the usa. usipis vision for equal access to freedom,justice, and opportunity in india rests on its three pillars; research &…
To work towards eradicating curable blindness all over india. our key program is vision 20/20 - with the goal of performing 500,000 free surgeries per year throughout india. we have been primarily partnering with sankara eye foundation in…
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Baps Charities Inc and the most unlike its peers is Parsippany Indian Association. 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 23 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.
33 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. 33 of the 168 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 NEW JERSEY CITY UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds PARDADA PARDADI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds EKAL VIDYALAYA FOUNDATION OF USA ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds LIBERTY SCIENCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds ART OF LIVING FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNITED CHARITABLE ↗
- Who funds PRATHAM USA ↗
- Who funds BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS INDEPENDENCE REGION ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE INC ↗
- Who funds THE ART OF LIVING HEALTH AND EDUCATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds WHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FAMILY REACH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL ↗
- Who funds Fair Observer ↗
- Who funds COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE OF ORANGE COUNTY ↗
- Who funds BAPS CHARITIES INC ↗
- Who funds AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA) ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE ↗
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: Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · American Express Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Network for Good
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 Niswarth International Foundation F/K/A Radha and Chirag Patel 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.
- Shri Krishna Nidhi Foundation Inc — 46% of income from government
- Liberty Science Center — 14% 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 Niswarth International Foundation F/K/A Radha and Chirag Patel Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Niswarth International Foundation F/K/A Radha and Chirag Patel 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.