· Private foundation
Rajput-Dasgupta Family Charitable Foundation
Its FY2024 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: 50% of RAJPUT-DASGUPTA FAMILY CHARITABLE 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 |
|---|---|
| FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE | $3,500 |
| LIVING & LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER | $3,000 |
| NADANTA INC | $3,000 |
| FAR THERAPEUTIC ARTS AND RECREATION | $2,500 |
| BEAUMONT HEALTH FOUNDATON | $2,000 |
| EKAL VIDYALAYA FOUNDATION OF USA | $1,215 |
| AUTISM ALLIANCE OF MICHIGAN | $1,000 |
| BICHITRA INC | $1,000 |
| THE ARC OF OAKLAND | $1,000 |
| GIVE MERIT INC | $500 |
| CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION | $500 |
| GESHER HUMAN SERVICES | $250 |
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 (FY17–24, $27k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% 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
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.
14 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k 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
- LLLIVING & LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER7× · 2018–2024 · $27k · revenue ×21
- FCFAR CONSERVATORY OF THERAPEUTIC AND PERFORMING ARTS8× · 2017–2024 · $20k · revenue +86%
- EVEKAL VIDYALAYA FOUNDATION OF USA4× · 2018–2024 · $4k · revenue +22%
Funded once
- TBTHE BHARATIYA TEMPLE OF METROPOLITAN DETROITone grant, 2017 · $3k
- FHFISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue +32%
- SCShare & Care Foundation Incone grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue -91%
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 mission of dfci is to provide expert, compassionate, and equitable care to children, adults, and their families, while advancing the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, cure, and prevention of cancer and related diseases. we train new…
To marshal and focus the resources and relationships needed to cure fa by raising funds for research, promoting public awareness and aligning scientists, patients, clinicians, government agencies and pharmaceutical companies dedicated to…
To accelerate the development of breakthrough discoveries that will transform the lives of people living with food allergies.
Research towards possible treatment and cure for infantile neuroaxonal dystrophy
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Give Merit Inc and the most unlike its peers is Udayan. 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 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% 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 12% 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.
23 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. 23 of the 43 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 LIVING & LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER ↗
- Who funds FAR CONSERVATORY OF THERAPEUTIC AND PERFORMING ARTS ↗
- Who funds NADANTA INC ↗
- Who funds UDAYAN ↗
- Who funds EKAL VIDYALAYA FOUNDATION OF USA ↗
- Who funds GIVE MERIT INC ↗
- Who funds BEAUMONT HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AUTISM ALLIANCE OF MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds MAI FAMILY SERVICES SASHITAL ↗
- Who funds FISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Share & Care Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds JARC ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION OF MI ASSO OF PHYSICIANS OF INDIAN HERITAGE ↗
- Who funds FOOD ALLERGY RESEARCH & EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL DREAMS FARM INC ↗
- Who funds PRATHAM USA ↗
- Who funds ANGELS' PLACE ↗
- Who funds National Acupuncture Detoxification Association ↗
- Who funds GESHER HUMAN SERVICES ↗
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: The Kresge Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Mullick Foundation · Dte Energy Foundation · The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Rajput-Dasgupta Family Charitable 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.
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.