How much did RAVI AND NAINA PATEL FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 78% of RAVI AND NAINA PATEL FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2020

mobilizehomelessnessearthmeditation

2021

covidfoodaroundzenteachersrecoverbakersfield

2022

academicbakersfieldchildren

2023

wish dedicatededicate themselvesthemselves fullyfully rapidrapid pacepace evolutionevolution possible

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k7 grants · $17k
$10k–50k7 grants · $170k
$50k–250k5 grants · $425k
$250k+3 grants · $1.3M

$25,000

Median grant

States reached

$41M

Total assets

Largest grants

FRESNO STATE FOUNDATION$529,000
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD FOUNDATION$400,000
FRIENDS OF MERCY FOUNDATION$400,000
BRAHMANANDA SARASWATI FOUNDATION$100,000
SHANTIKUNJ OF NORTH AMERICA CENTER$100,000
HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION$100,000
RODALE INSTITUTE CALIFORNIA ORGANIC CENTER$65,000
FOREST HISTORY SOCIETY$60,000
OPEN DOOR NETWORK$40,358
KARUNA FOUNDATION$40,000
REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE FOUNDATION$25,000
MINDFUL LIFE PROJECT$25,000
CHRISTINE MCBRIDE$19,422
RAAM RAJ FOUNDATION$10,000
GLOBAL CAPITAL OF WORLD PEACE INC$10,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY21–24, $220k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 10%. 55% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$5.3M · 25 repeat orgs$3.9M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +130% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.

25 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 13 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$5.3M

$3.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+130%

+22%

Still filing today

44%

36%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 67% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $636k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

PhilanthropyInternationalHuman ServicesReligionEducationEnvironmentOther

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

CF
CENTER FOR DISASTER PHILANTHROPY
2× · 2020–2021 · $450k · revenue +455%
BS
BRAHMANANDA SARASWATI FOUNDATION
2× · 2023–2024 · $170k · revenue +804%
OD
OPEN DOOR NETWORK
2× · 2023–2024 · $115k · revenue +825%

Funded once

BS
BHRAHMANADA SARASWATI FOUNDATION
one grant, 2021 · $283k
BS
BHRAHMANANDA SARASWATI FOUNDATION
one grant, 2020 · $283k
TG
THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE
one grant, 2021 · $250k

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

04Your field

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.

Maharishi Global Admin Through Natural Law

Education and application of maharishi vedic science and technology to promote development of higher states of consciousness and world peace. (continues on sch o)

Human Services

Mk Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence

Help individuals and communities develop the inner resources and practical skills needed to achieve a nonviolent, sustainable, and just world.

International

Karuna Foundation

Supporting the wellbeing of animals, our natural environment and all global citizens.

Animals

Center for Domestic Peace

Center for Domestic Peace mobilizes individuals and communities to transform our world so domestic violence no longer exists, creating greater safety, justice, and equality.

Human Services

Vivekananda Yoga University

VaYU is a nonprofit organization incorporated in the State of California to provide Yoga education and research at graduate (Master of Science)level.

Education

The Prem Rawat Foundation

The Prem Rawat Foundation addresses the fundamental human needs of food, water and peace so that people can live with dignity, peace and prosperity.

Recreation & Sports

Himalayan Childrens Fund

HCF provides crucial financial support for education, food, clothing and medical care for the impoverished people of the Himalayan region who are primarily of Tibetan and Buddhist heritage.

International

Hanuman Fellowship

Hanuman fellowship is organized, as inspired by the example and teachings of master yogi baba hair Dass, to promote the principles and practice of yoga by means of sadhana (spiritual proactive), karma yoga (selfless service) and…

Religion

Yogananda Seva Inc

Yogananda Sevas mission is to engage and motivate the vast pool of Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF)/Yogoda Satsanga Society of India (YSS) members around the world in a variety of initiatives that support and/or complement SRFs and YSSs…

Religion

India Partners

International relief, development, and education.

International

Auroville International Usa

Supporting projects and programs in the Auroville Project in India as the first attempt anywhere to create a universal town where men and women of all countries can live together in peace and progressive harmony, above all creeds, all…

International

Chacruna Institute for Psychedelic Plant

We promote reciprocity in the psychedelic community, and support the protection of sacred plants and cultural traditions.

Education

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Family Philanthropy and the most unlike its peers is Chief Seattle Club. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 17 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/40

the rest of the field

12%

22,290/186,938

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.

05the grantee network

37 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

34/37

Grantees still filing

21/37

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$7,348,161Education$760,400Public Safety & Disaster$450,000Human Services$220,358Religion$181,000Environment$127,650Food & Nutrition$125,000

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.

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.

The Rona and Jeffrey Abramson FoundationMD15.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 9 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Rona and Jeffrey Abramson Foundation · Kern Community Foundation · Schwartz Family Foundation · David L Lieb Foundation Inc · The Virginia and Alfred Harrell · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund

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 organisation RAVI AND NAINA 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2025

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: TREE FOUNDATION OF KERN.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

low risk

8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 770359397 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on TREE FOUNDATION OF KERN, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue contracted over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 16% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Ravi and Naina Patel Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Ravi and Naina Patel Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

RAVI AND NAINA PATEL FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

37 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Ravi and Naina Patel Foundation?

More from the funding graph

RAVI AND NAINA PATEL FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

37 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Ravi and Naina Patel Foundation?

More from the funding graph