Skip to content
Pranavash Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Pranavash Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$5k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$25kInternational$4kArts & Culture$4kEducation$4kReligion$2kHuman Services$362Philanthropy$105Other$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$119k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VASIHNAV SANGH OF USA$1,500
BAPS$1,001
RITESH SHAH CHARITABLE PHARMACY$1,000
SAHNTI FUND$1,000
INDIAN NETWORK OF EASTERN LI$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 (FY22–24, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%SAHNTI FUND: $1k → 7%BAPS CHARITIES: $111 → 11%SHANTI FUND INC: $1k → 7%ASIA INITIATIVES: $1k → 17%RIVERHEAD ROTARY CHARITIES: $150 → 7%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.
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.

19%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8k · 4 repeat orgs$33k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +180% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
17

Total granted

$8k
$31k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+180%
+10%

Still filing today

50%
35%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesArts & CultureHealthInternationalOther
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

  • RS
    RITESH SHAH CHARITABLE PHARMACY
    3× · 2022–2024 · $3k
  • SF
    SHANTI FUND INC
    2× · 2022–2024 · $2k · revenue +180%
  • IN
    INDIAN NETWORK OF EASTERN LONG ISLAND INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $2k · revenue -73%

Funded once

  • I
    IDRF
    one grant, 2021 · $22k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • AI
    Asia Initiativesgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $1k · revenue +31%
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
Sindhi Association of North America
—
2
Vattikuti India Relief Foundation
Philanthropy
3
I Mission

Helping the needy people in india and us .

—
4
Overseas Organization for Better Bihar

organize social and cultural events like Bihar Divas Holi Diwali and FOG Independence Day Parade

Human Services
5
Radiant Foundation

promotes & supports causes in healthcare, education, sustainable development, womens empowerment, and social justice through grassroot organizations in India and the United States.

International
6
Bangladesh Puja Samiti of New York Inc

To observe/celebrate various hindu religious occasions and hold prayers, rituals, parade and other activities of hindu religion and bengali culture.

Religion
7
Indian Rural Education Charities Inc

Empower education to less fortunate and provide various support fromm food and various other support in rural india

International
8
Indo American Development and Health Organization
International
9
India Association of Buffalo Inc

Public Charity focused on Arts and culture

Arts & Culture
10
Oceans of Mercy

Missionary work in the nation of India

Religion
11
Shrut Ratnakar Foundation Inc

The organization provides charitable giving to qualifying nonprofit oraganizations and similar exempt programs, beginning in gujarat, india

International
12
India Awareness Foundation Inc

Public education

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Baps Charities Inc; the most unlike its peers is Indian Network of Eastern Long Island 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

8 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. 8 of the 23 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

IDRF: $22,130 · OtherIDRFRITESH SHAH CHARITABLE PHARMACY: $3,001 · OtherRITESH SHAH CHARITABLE PHARMACYIndividual grant recipient: $2,001 · OtherIndividual grant recipientINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL MISSION: $1,500 · OtherVAISHNAV SANGH OF USA INC: $1,500 · Other+10 more: $4,560 · Other+10 moreSHANTI FUND INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesAsia Initiatives: $1,001 · Human ServicesRIVERHEAD ROTARY CHARITIES INC: $150 · Human ServicesBAPS CHARITIES INC: $111 · Human ServicesINDIAN NETWORK OF EASTERN LONG ISLAND INC: $1,500 · Arts & CultureINDIA ASSOCIATION OF LONG ISLAND: $500 · Arts & CultureOPERATION INTERNATIONAL LTD: $1,000 · HealthSHRIMAD RAJCHANDRA LOVE AND CARE -USA INC: $501 · International
Other$34,692Human Services$3,262Arts & Culture$2,000Health$1,000International$501

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSHANTI FUND INC: $2,000 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetINDIAN NETWORK OF EASTERN LONG ISLAND INC: $1,500 over 3y, 9.0% of budgetAsia Initiatives: $1,001 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetOPERATION INTERNATIONAL LTD: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSHRIMAD RAJCHANDRA LOVE AND CARE -USA INC: $501 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRIVERHEAD ROTARY CHARITIES INC: $150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBAPS CHARITIES INC: $111 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 SHANTI FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds INDIAN NETWORK OF EASTERN LONG ISLAND INC ↗
  • Who funds Asia Initiatives ↗
  • Who funds OPERATION INTERNATIONAL LTD ↗
  • Who funds SHRIMAD RAJCHANDRA LOVE AND CARE -USA INC ↗
  • Who funds INDIA ASSOCIATION OF LONG ISLAND ↗
  • Who funds RIVERHEAD ROTARY CHARITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds BAPS CHARITIES 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Pranavash Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pranavash Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 23 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Pranavash’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