· Private foundation
The Greens Foundation Inc
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k8 grants · $27k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $30k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $63k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SHRI KACHERIA MUJILAL GORDHANDAS GE | $62,500 |
| SIDDHA YOGA MEDITATION CENTER | $10,002 |
| SYDA FOUNDATION | $10,001 |
| Pratham USA | $10,001 |
| BAPS | $7,502 |
| SHRIMAD RAJCHANDRA LOVE AND CARE US | $5,001 |
| CARING HAND FOR CHILDREN | $5,001 |
| INLAND EMPIRE COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONW | $5,000 |
| Riverside University Health System | $2,500 |
| RIVERSIDE CITY FIREFIGHTERS FOUNDAT | $1,200 |
| Manitha Neyam Trust | $501 |
| SURTI LEUVA PATIDAR SAMAJ | $500 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
US giving: 36% of grant dollars ($111k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 64% that went abroad ($196k) is mapped below.
Its human-services grants (FY23–25, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 50% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
How this is measured
Beyond the US: 64% of all-years giving ($196k)
2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +55% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.
9 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 6 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, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $32k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- PUPRATHAM USA4× · 2022–2025 · $38k · revenue +9%
- RURiverside University Health System Foundation4× · 2022–2025 · $11k · revenue +55%
- MNMANITHA NEYAM TRUST INC4× · 2022–2025 · $2k · revenue +86%
Funded once
- VGVeda Geetha Foundationone grant, 2022 · $5k
- AFAALAMBANA FOUNDATION INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue +26%
- TPTHE PULMONARY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2024 · $3k
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.
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.
Help poor students in education.
Educate children in need
Spanadanas main mission is to execute projects in downtrodden communities, and also to help schools in low socioeconomical area by providing tools and amenities to improve students educations
Access to opportunities for marginalzed people in South Asia
Our mission is to catalyze socio-econimic change in India through the education of underpriviledged children.
ARMMAN USA aims to support ARMMAN India directed towards reducing maternal, child, and neonatal mortality in India by providing financial support, technical support, and internships for professionals in India, forming volunteer groups, and…
To support education based organizations
How this is measured
10 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. 10 of the 27 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
- Who funds PRATHAM USA ↗
- Who funds Riverside University Health System Foundation ↗
- Who funds SHRIMAD RAJCHANDRA LOVE AND CARE -USA INC ↗
- Who funds CARING HAND FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds Inland Empire Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds AALAMBANA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MANITHA NEYAM TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds Arpan Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds LOVING THUNDER THERAPEUTIC RIDING INC ↗
- Who funds DONORSCHOOSEORG ↗
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.
Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization The Greens Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Greens Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Play a game based on Greens’ filings →