· Private foundation
Parikh Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k12 grants · $35k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $75k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AIM FOR SEVA | $35,000 |
| MSK CANCER CENTER | $20,000 |
| NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS | $10,000 |
| THE AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| SMITH COLLEGE | $5,000 |
| NEW VILLAGE | $5,000 |
| THE FOOD BANK OF WESTERN MASS | $5,000 |
| CAMP HOWE | $5,000 |
| GIFT FOR A DAY | $4,000 |
| NORTHAMPTON EDUCATION FOUNDATION | $3,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,000 |
| EDUCATE GIRLS | $2,000 |
| KQED | $1,670 |
| NEPM | $1,670 |
| THE MOON CATCHER PROJECT | $1,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $205k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
11 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $37k 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
- AIALL INDIA MOVEMENT FOR SEVA INC9× · 2017–2025 · $205k · revenue +99%
- APAKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION4× · 2019–2025 · $22k · revenue +134%
- TMTHE MOONCATCHER PROJECT INC7× · 2017–2025 · $17k · revenue +246%
Funded once
- MSMEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERINGone grant, 2021 · $15k
- PPMVSone grant, 2021 · $6k
- SISEWA INTERNATIONAL INCone grant, 2021 · $3k
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.
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…
To support educational opportunities for underserved children in india, and raising support for and awareness of such activities in the united states.
To invest in educational programs in India to equip girls to define their own destiny.
Sister India provides a holistic program, protecting and uplifting women and girls, ending trafficking, child marriages and child labor, lifting families from poverty, and ensuring girls can go to school instead. We research effective…
Food for life vrindavan has been working in india since 1991. our work includes free meal distribution, cleaning and tree planting, paper recycling , organic farming, and a sewing and embroidery centre (providing training & employment…
Womankind uses the multidimensionality of its asian heritage to work alongside survivors of gender-based violence as they build a path to healing.
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…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
To strengthen schools and improve girls' leadership and livelihood options.
Economic development of women
The creation of an association of the world's leading social entrepreneurs - men and women with system-changing solutions for the world's most urgent social problems - and fostering a global culture of everyone being a changemaker for the…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sakhi for South Asian Survivors Inc and the most unlike its peers is Camp Howe Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 28 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 ALL INDIA MOVEMENT FOR SEVA INC ↗
- Who funds AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA) ↗
- Who funds THE MOONCATCHER PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds THE FOOD BANK OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds NAMI National ↗
- Who funds SAKHI FOR SOUTH ASIAN SURVIVORS INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VILLAGE INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF THE SMITH COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds CAMP HOWE INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHAMPTON EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds EDUCATE GIRLS ↗
- Who funds KQED INC ↗
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: Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Parikh 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.
- The Trustees of the Smith College — 1% of income from government
- Camp Howe Inc — 1% 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.