· Private foundation
Subhash and Saroj Charitable Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k19 grants · $36k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $34k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $14,400 |
| SEWA INTL | $10,000 |
| H AF HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,600 |
| HSS HINDU SWAYMSEVAK SANGH | $5,000 |
| SEWA INTERNATIONAL | $5,000 |
| MTS MEENAKSHI TEMPLE SOCIETY | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,500 |
| SANATAN HINDU CENTER | $2,500 |
| GUJARATI SAMAJ OF HOUSTON | $2,500 |
| DISHA | $2,500 |
| HINDU UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA HUA | $1,000 |
| AUM SCHOOL | $1,000 |
| ACHALLESH AMAR SPONSORSHIP FOR RAM | $501 |
| Individual grant recipient | $500 |
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 (FY20–23, $168) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +47% since the first grant, against +35% for the ones you funded once.
56 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 47 since wound down; 12 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, 41% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $42k 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
- SISewa International Inc8× · 2017–2024 · $69k · revenue +101%
- HAHINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION INC5× · 2018–2023 · $65k · revenue +175%
- HSHINDU SWAYAMSEVAK SANGH U S A INC3× · 2021–2024 · $15k · revenue +85%
Funded once
- HPHUMANITY PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue -99%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $50k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · $10k
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.
Foster teachings of hindu religion
Our mission as per the by-laws : a) the board adopts a strategic plan that includes goals which will lead to acquiring accreditation recognized by us department of education and maintaining it. this includes getting an accreditation from…
Support & protect human rights.
To promote the understanding of india's cultural traditions, universal understanding and harmony; to publish the encyclopedia of hinduism; to organize lectures and seminars on various aspects of indian traditions; charitable activities…
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,…
Promote the universal message of hinduism, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower hindu americans through mutual support.
The very essence of spirituality and religion lies in understanding the depth of ancient wisdom, connecting to the divine, and achieving inner peace. our organization, rooted in the profound teachings of vedic scriptures and the practice…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hindu American Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Planned Parenthood. 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 28 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% 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.
42 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. 42 of the 159 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 Sewa International Inc ↗
- Who funds HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HUMANITY PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds DHARMA CIVILIZATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HINDU SWAYAMSEVAK SANGH U S A INC ↗
- Who funds EKAL VIDYALAYA FOUNDATION OF USA ↗
- Who funds HINDUS OF GREATER HOUSTON ↗
- Who funds ETERNAL GANDHI MUSEUM HOUSTON ↗
- Who funds REWEAVE INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD HINDU FOUNDATION OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds GUJARATI SAMAJ OF HOUSTON 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: Bhutada Family Foundation · Texas Instruments Foundation · Shell USA Company Foundation · Bright Funds Foundation · Verizon Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Charities Aid Foundation America · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
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 Subhash and Saroj 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- The Shriners' Hospital for Children — 6% of income from government
- Wounded Warrior Project Inc — 0% of income from government
- Shriners Hospitals for Children — 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Subhash and Saroj Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Subhash and Saroj Charitable Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.