Skip to content
Srivastava Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Srivastava 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.

$10k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Animals$149kEducation$140kFood & Nutrition$65kCommunity Improvement$25kInternational$21kHealth$17k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$10,250
Median grant
1
States reached
$923k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY$10,250
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 44% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 9%TIE FOUNDATION: $25k → 8%ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: $10k → 9%AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION USA: $10k → 10%FARM SANCTUARY: $15k → 12%PRATHAM USA: $10k → 16%KANAWHA-CHARLESTON HUMANE ASSOCIATION: $10k → 18%KARAM FOUNDATION: $11k → 8%PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: $10k → 19%HUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY: $1k → 8%ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: $10k → 9%FARM SANCTUARY: $10k → 12%PRATHAM USA: $10k → 16%KCHA: $10k → 18%PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: $5k → 19%HUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY: $515 → 8%ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: $5k → 9%FARM SANCTUARY: $10k → 12%PRATHAM USA: $10k → 16%KCHA: $5k → 18%PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: $5k → 19%FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE: $25k → 8%ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: $5k → 9%FARM SANCTUARY: $10k → 12%PRATHAM USA: $10k → 16%KANAWHA-CHARLESTON HUMANE ASSOCIATION: $5k → 18%PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: $1k → 19%FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE: $25k → 8%FARM SANCTUARY: $10k → 12%KANAWHA-CHARLESTON HUMANE ASSOCIATION: $5k → 18%FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE: $20k → 8%FARM SANCTUARY: $10k → 12%KANAWHA-CHARLESTON HUMANE ASSOCIATION: $1k → 18%FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE: $15k → 8%FARM SANCTUARY: $9k → 12%KANAWHA-CHARLESTON HUMANE ASSOCIATION: $1k → 18%FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE: $10k → 8%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $15k → 8%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $10k → 8%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $10k → 8%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $10k → 8%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $10k → 8%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $10k → 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.
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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$351k · 10 repeat orgs$66k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +52% since the first grant, against -42% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
5

Total granted

$351k
$66k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+52%
-42%

Still filing today

90%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
AnimalsFood & NutritionPhilanthropyEducationHealthCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • FF
    FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE INC
    3× · 2020–2024 · $95k · revenue +97%
  • FS
    FARM SANCTUARY INC
    6× · 2018–2024 · $74k · revenue +27%
  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY
    4× · 2020–2025 · $65k · revenue +45%

Funded once

  • TF
    TIE FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue -42%
  • K
    KCHA
    one grant, 2022 · $15k
  • KF
    KARAM FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $11k · revenue -42%
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
Humane World for Animals International

HUMANE WORLD FOR ANIMALS INTERNATIONAL, FKA HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (HSI), works around the globe to promote the human-animal bond, rescue and protect dogs and cats, improve farm animal welfare, protect wildlife, promote animal-free…

Animals
2
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
3
Animal Wellness Action

To prevent cruelty to animals, we promote enacting and enforcing good public policies. enacting good laws depends upon electing good lawmakers, and we remind voters which candidates care about and support animal issues.

Human Services
4
Nalanda 20

Improve excellence and access in higher education. Current focus is on India. Thus, Nalanda 2.0's current focus is to make India's higher education system world-class by building a world-class multidisciplinary research university,…

Education
5
600 Million Stray Dogs Need You Corporation

To end the #1 cause of suffering and death for dogs and cats globally, by developing food that will spay and neuter them, without surgery and end the overpopulation problem without killing.

Animals
6
Nanban Foundation

Nanban foundation strives to provide free, high-quality financial education for all. the organization functions with the support of volunteers united by one common goal: knowledge sharing. embracing online education, we invite people of…

Education
7
Humane World Action Fund

To pass animal protection laws, educate the public, and support humane candidates for office.

Animals
8
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

The aspca's mission, as stated by founder henry bergh in 1866, is "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the united states." the aspca was founded on the belief that animals are entitled to kind and…

Animals
9
Humane World for Animals Inc

Humane World for Animals, Inc., formerly known as the Humane Society of the United States (The Organization), seeks to tackle the root causes of animal cruelty and suffering. CONTINUED ON SCHEDULE O

Animals
10
Four Paws International Inc

Our vision is a world where humans treat animals with respect, empathy and understanding. four paws mission is to be the strong, global and independent voice for animals.

Animals
11
Panthera Corporation

Panthera's mission is the conservation of the world's 40 wild cat species, many of which are endangered or threatened. panthera develops, implements and oversees wild cat conservation strategies on a global scale.

Animals
12
Dharamsala Animal Rescue

Our mission is to create a better world for animals and people by ending the human/street dog conflict.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Farm Sanctuary Inc; the most unlike its peers is Tie Foundation. 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

12 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. 12 of the 15 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)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FARM SANCTUARY INC: $74,100 · AnimalsFARM SANCTUARY INCANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC: $30,000 · AnimalsANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INCKANAWHA-CHARLESTON HUMANE ASSOCIATION INC: $22,000 · AnimalsKANAWHA-CHARLESTON HUMANE ASSOCIATION…PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC: $11,000 · AnimalsPEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF A…+1 more: $1,515 · AnimalsFOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE INC: $95,000 · EducationFOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE…SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $65,465 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST OF SI…AKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA): $10,000 · Food & NutritionAKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDA…PRATHAM USA: $40,000 · PhilanthropyPRATHAM USAKARAM FOUNDATION: $11,042 · PhilanthropyKARAM FOUNDAT…KCHA: $15,000 · OtherPEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: $10,000 · OtherGLEN WORLD: $5,000 · OtherTIE FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Community ImprovementUNRAVEL: $1,500 · Health
Animals$138,615Education$95,000Food & Nutrition$75,465Philanthropy$51,042Other$30,000Community Improvement$25,000Health$1,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE INC: $95,000 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetFARM SANCTUARY INC: $74,100 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $65,465 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPRATHAM USA: $40,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC: $30,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTIE FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetKANAWHA-CHARLESTON HUMANE ASSOCIATION INC: $22,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetKARAM FOUNDATION: $11,042 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC: $11,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAKSHAYA PATRA FOUNDATION (USA): $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY: $1,515 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNRAVEL: $1,500 over 2y, 0.1% 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.

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.

Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN11.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Srivastava Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Srivastava Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 15 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 Srivastava’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