Skip to content

· Private foundation

Pramodchandra and Devila Shah 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.

$23k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it funds
0182% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

International$47kHuman Services$21kFood & Nutrition$11kHealth$10kReligion$9kPhilanthropy$4kCivil Rights$3kCommunity Improvement$3kOther$0
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$206k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BIDADA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION$5,000
IMANE$4,300
INDIAN COMMUNITY OF NORTH SHORE$2,500
INDIAN CIRCLE FOR CARING USA INC$2,000
Individual grant recipient$1,500
CUTANEOUS LYMPHOMA FOUNDATION$1,000
AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION$1,000
SAHELI$1,000
TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION$1,000
WE CARE CHARITY$1,000
WOMEN WHO WIN$1,000
SOUTH FLORIDA HINDU TEMPLE$500
FESSER AND FRIENDS INC$500
SATSANG CENTER$500
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.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–25, $21k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WE CARE CHARITY: $2k → 5%WE CARE CHARITY: $1k → 5%WE CARE CHARITY: $1k → 5%WE CARE CHARITY: $1k → 5%WE CARE CHARITY: $1k → 5%WE CARE CHARITY: $1k → 5%WE CARE CHARITY: $1k → 5%WE CARE CHARITY: $1k → 5%WE CARE CHARITY: $500 → 5%INDIAN CIRCLE FOR CARING USA INC: $2k → 8%INDIAN CIRCLE FOR CARING USA INC: $2k → 8%SAHELI: $1k → 8%SAHELI: $1k → 8%SAHELI: $1k → 8%SAHELI: $1k → 8%SAHELI: $1k → 8%SAHELI: $1k → 8%SAHELI: $500 → 8%SAHELI: $500 → 8%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.

Which US states its grants reach

NH
WA
MI
NY
MA
PA
CT
CA
VA
FL
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$144k · 18 repeat orgs$8k to everyone else

18 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
11

Total granted

$144k
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+20%

Still filing today

44%
36%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesFood & NutritionInternationalEducationCivil RightsOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • BI
    BIDADA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $41k · revenue +83%
  • WC
    We Care Charity Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $10k · revenue +236%
  • SI
    SAHELI INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $7k · revenue +602%

Funded once

  • WR
    WINDHAM REGION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    one grant, 2023 · $3k
  • NS
    NORTH SHORE CRICKET CLUB INC
    one grant, 2023 · $1k
  • VH
    VILLAGE HEALTH WORKS
    one grant, 2018 · $1k · revenue +10%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its 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
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
2
Akhand Jyoti Usa

Eradicate cureable blindness, girls education, and women empowerment in the rural india

Health
3
Sajjadiyya Foundation Limited

The purpose and mission of the sajjadiyya foundation limited is to enhance the availability of quality education, health care and social services to those in need so that they have a stable base upon which to build healthy and productive…

Human Services
4
World Health Foundation
—
5
Share and Care Foundation for India

The mission of the share and care foundation is to create opportunities for deserving, economically challenged women and children of india by partnering with communities, philanthropists and local charitable organizations. such…

International
6
Sewa International Inc

The organization's objective is to serve humanity in distress, aid local communities,and promote volunteerism in pursuit of its vision of a world of equality where everyone is happy,enjoying good health, and living in harmony with nature.

Human Services
7
Intelehealth Inc

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…

International
8
Fajr Scientific

To provide multi-specialty surgical care, humanitarian aid and educational support to people in low- and middle-income countries.

Science & Tech
9
Karuna-Shechen Usa

Karuna-shechen initiates and oversees projects that provide health care, education, and social services for the under-served populations of india, nepal, and tibet.

Philanthropy
10
International Medical Corps

To save lives & relieve suffering through health interventions & related activities that strengthen communities affected by conflict, natural disasters & disease outbreaks.

International
11
Asha Partners

To eliminate poverty through the creation of sustainable and effective community development projects, and to create holistic transformation by bringing hope, empowerment, and healing to those with the greatest need.

Religion
12
Shiv Nadar Foundation

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…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Indian Circle for Caring Usa Inc (Icc); the most unlike its peers is Adopt a Boxer Rescue. 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

15 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. 15 of the 31 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/15
Grantees still filing
8/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

IMANE: $28,320 · OtherIMANEINDIAN CIRCLE FOR CARING: $10,000 · OtherINDIAN CIRCLE FOR CARINGIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientINDIAN COMMUNITY OF NORTH SHORE INC: $4,000 · OtherINDIAN COMMUNITY OF NORTH SHORE INCWINDHAM REGION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $3,000 · OtherSATSANG: $2,900 · OtherGURJAR: $2,650 · Other+14 more: $8,097 · Other+14 moreBIDADA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $41,000 · HealthBIDADA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATIONCUTANEOUS LYMPHOMA FOUNDATION: $9,000 · HealthCUTANEOUS LYMPHOMA FOUNDATIONPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $3,000 · HealthPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORAT…We Care Charity Inc: $9,500 · Human ServicesWe Care Charity…SAHELI INC: $7,000 · Human ServicesSAHELI INCINDIAN CIRCLE FOR CARING USA INC (ICC): $4,000 · Human ServicesINDIAN CIRCLE F…AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA): $3,500 · Food & NutritionWOMEN WHO WIN INC: $3,000 · Civil RightsSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $2,000 · EducationNORTH SHORE CRICKET CLUB INC: $1,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$68,967Health$53,000Human Services$20,500Food & Nutrition$3,500Civil Rights$3,000Education$2,000Recreation & Sports$1,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBIDADA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $41,000 over 9y, 0.8% of budgetWe Care Charity Inc: $9,500 over 9y, 0.9% of budgetCUTANEOUS LYMPHOMA FOUNDATION: $9,000 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetSAHELI INC: $7,000 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetINDIAN CIRCLE FOR CARING USA INC (ICC): $4,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetAKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA): $3,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetWOMEN WHO WIN INC: $3,000 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetVILLAGE HEALTH WORKS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFesser and Friends Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAdopt A Boxer Rescue: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPAN-MASSACHUSETTS CHALLENGE INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL RAMAH COMMISSION INC: $30 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.

  • Who funds BIDADA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds We Care Charity Inc ↗
  • Who funds CUTANEOUS LYMPHOMA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SAHELI INC ↗
  • Who funds INDIAN CIRCLE FOR CARING USA INC (ICC) ↗
  • Who funds AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA) ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN WHO WIN INC ↗
  • Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds NORTH SHORE CRICKET CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds VILLAGE HEALTH WORKS ↗
  • Who funds Fesser and Friends Inc ↗
  • Who funds Adopt A Boxer Rescue ↗
  • Who funds PAN-MASSACHUSETTS CHALLENGE INC ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL RAMAH COMMISSION INC ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Bank of America Charitable Foundation IncNC9.2× affinity7 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Pramodchandra and Devila Shah Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pramodchandra and Devila Shah Family 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Saheli Inc: 61% of income from government
  • Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation: 0% of income from government
  • Pan-Massachusetts Challenge Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
1rely on government for over half their income
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 31 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 Pramodchandra and Devila Shah Family’s filings →

More from the funding graph