· Private foundation
The Gupta Family 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
- $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION OF INDIA | $50,080 |
| CAPITAL IIT ALUMNI ASSOCIATION | $50,000 |
| WHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| WEST SIDE MONTESSORI SCHOOL | $10,000 |
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 — 81% of grant dollars ($444k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 19% that went abroad ($105k) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 32% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Beyond the US — 19% of all-years giving ($105k)
1 country, 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 +331% since the first grant, against +92% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 2 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, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k 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
- WGWHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATION6× · 2017–2024 · $175k · revenue +331%
- PHPUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION OF INDIA2× · 2022–2024 · $100k
- PUPRATHAM USA3× · 2017–2019 · $25k · revenue +20%
Funded once
- TPTHE PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue +5%
- TMTHE MARSHALL PROJECT INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +133%
- IAIIT ALUMNI OF GREATER HOUSTONone grant, 2020 · $20k
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.
Making the web work for everyone. W3C brings together global stakeholders to develop open standards that enable a World Wide Web that connects and empowers humanity.
The world privacy forum is dedicated to reimaging privacy in a digital era through ground-breaking, in-depth privacy research and consumer education of the highest quality. our vision is to empower people with the knowledge, rights, and…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The mission of the international women's forum is to advance women's leadership worldwide. iwf takes direct action to achieve our mission in three important ways. connect: our convenings provide networking and cutting-edge content…
Ifac acts in the public interest and has no profit-making purpose. ifac serves the public interest by: speaking out and engaging as the voice for the global profession; leading and developing a future-ready accountancy profession; and…
The mission of the foundation is to simultaneously address childhood hunger and malnutrition and to promote education for children throughout india.
To provide multi-specialty surgical care, humanitarian aid and educational support to people in low- and middle-income countries.
To organize pro-israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy americans to promote us policies that embody our deeply held jewish and democratic values and that help secure the state of israel as a democratic homeland for the jewish people.
Organization mission the observer research foundation america orf america is an independent, non-partisan, and nonprofit organization in washington dc dedicated to addressing policy challenges facing the united states, india, and their…
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
First Look Institute supports fearless investigative journalism, innovative and cinematic nonfiction filmmaking, and press freedom initiatives to protect the right to a free and open society and press.
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The American India Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Fair Observer. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 15 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 WHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CAPITAL IIT ALUMNI ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds PRATHAM USA ↗
- Who funds THE MARSHALL PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds Fair Observer ↗
- Who funds WEST SIDE MONTESSORI SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds DEFY VENTURES INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN INDIA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE BUSHWICK STARR INC ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT FOODSHARE 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: National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation 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 The Gupta Family 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.
- Connecticut Foodshare Inc — 5% 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 The Gupta Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Gupta Family 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.