· Private foundation
Sathyarupa Charitable Trust
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.
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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UK TRUST FRIENDS OF MANIPAY GREEN HOSPITAL | $9,000 |
| IMHO | $7,000 |
| MANITHA NEYAM TRUST | $7,000 |
| PEARL | $3,000 |
| UNICEF USA | $3,000 |
| CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK | $2,500 |
| MANNA FOOD CENTER - MARYLAND | $2,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH | $2,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,000 |
| ACTION AID | $2,000 |
| HOUSE OF RUTH | $2,000 |
| WORLD FOOD PROGRAM | $2,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD | $2,000 |
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 US giving — 75% of grant dollars ($336k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 25% that went abroad ($113k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY25–25, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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
Beyond the US — 25% of all-years giving ($113k)
2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +37% since the first grant, against +28% for the ones you funded once.
39 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k 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
- MNMANITHA NEYAM TRUST INC6× · 2018–2025 · $32k · revenue +85%
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $13k · revenue +102%
UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF7× · 2019–2025 · $10k · revenue +55%
Funded once
- AHA HELPING HANDone grant, 2021 · $10k
- TGTAMIL GUARDIAN LIMITEDone grant, 2020 · $5k
- TCTHE CITY COLLEGE 21ST CENTURY FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2018 · $2k · revenue +28%
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.
(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.
To improve lives by mobilizing caring power of communities around the world to advance common good.
To conduct and support programs and activities aimed at solving some of the world's greatest public health challenges, with a specific focus on enabling health workers to have the greatest possible impact on the health of the people they…
Women in global health (wgh) is a global movement and organization that brings together all genders and backgrounds to achieve gender equality in global health leadership.
The mission of the global alliance for improved nutrition (gain) is to improve the consumption of healthier diets for all, especially the most vulnerable, by improving the availability, affordability, desirability, and sustainability of…
To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.
To improve the lives and protect the rights of women, children and youth displaced by conflict and crisis. the women's refugee commission envisions a world in which refugees are safe, healthy and reliant and seeks to drive change in…
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.
To save lives and protect people's health by increasing equitable and sustainable use of vaccines.
Crisis group works to prevent and resolve deadly conflict around the world by informing and influencing the perceptions and actions of policymakers and other key conflict actors. to this end, we endeavour to talk to all sides and provide…
Usp's mission is to improve global health through public standards and related programs that help ensure the quality, safety, and benefit of medicines and foods.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of the World Food Program Inc and the most unlike its peers is Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation. 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 46 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% 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 13% 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.
24 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. 24 of the 67 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 MANITHA NEYAM TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds NAMI National ↗
- Who funds GREATER WASHINGTON EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds Feeding America ↗
- Who funds VEAHAVTA ↗
- Who funds MANNA FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds UNRWA USA NATIONAL COMMITTEE INC ↗
- Who funds PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN NEAR EAST REFUGEE AID ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA 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 · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Sathyarupa Charitable Trust 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.
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% 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.