· Private foundation
The Naren & Vinita Gupta 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.
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k9 grants · $32k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $184k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $151k
- $250k+1 grant · $361k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SIMONS LAUFER MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES INSTITUTE | $360,750 |
| STANFORD UNIVERSITY | $150,992 |
| HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION | $40,000 |
| PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION | $40,000 |
| ASIA SOCIETY NORTHEN CALIFORNIA | $39,000 |
| UC BERKELEY FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| INDIA COMMUNITY CENTER | $10,000 |
| INDIASPORA | $10,000 |
| TIE SILICON VALLEY | $10,000 |
| MAITRI | $10,000 |
| BRDIGE ETHICS & EDUCATION CORPORATION | $7,000 |
| ENACTE ARTS | $5,000 |
| CASA CIRCULO CULTURAL | $5,000 |
| SACHI | $5,000 |
| FOUNDATION FOR INDIA AND INDIAN DISPORA STUDIES INC | $2,500 |
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 (FY18–25, $167k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 72% 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 +57% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
26 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2025, 14 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, 34% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $378k 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
- SBSUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION7× · 2017–2025 · $530k · revenue +73%
- HAHINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $235k · revenue +190%
- MMAITRI7× · 2017–2025 · $152k · revenue +57%
Funded once
- CICALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYone grant, 2024 · $2.5M · revenue 0%
- KSKAILASH SATYARTHI CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION USone grant, 2021 · $100k
- UBUC BERKELY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $40k
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.
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,…
Us-india policy institute (usipi)undertaking policy research on diversity and inclusive developments in india and the usa. usipis vision for equal access to freedom,justice, and opportunity in india rests on its three pillars; research &…
We are the alumni of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, who live and/or work in North America, which includes the USA, Canada and Mexico. Our goal is to garner the best and the brightest minds in Science and Technology from…
naisA Global is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization dedicated to helping talented young Asian professionals unlock their potential and become great leaders. It is the only non-profit of its kind to provide a global platform to…
The american india foundation(aif) is a nonprofit american development organization that is devoted to accelerating social and economic change in india.
The specific purpose, mission, and activity of the corporation is to secure funding for promoting education, research, technology development, startup incubation, acceleration, and translational research at the indian institute of science…
ARTRONIKA is a collective of Los Angeles based artists that produce immersive arts programming showcasing an array of South Asian talent and culture. Through innovative and inclusive events, we reimagine traditional music, art, and…
To enable Stem Education in India to train students to be innovative and job-ready upon graduation. The foundation acts as a global resource for Indian engineering colleges to provide access to tools, equipment, financial resources, and…
Facilitating international charitable donations to support urgent and high-impact needs in India, including healthcare, education, livelihoods, and social welfare, by enabling U.S. donors to give to vetted causes through Milaap.org.
An organization of technical professionals of indian origin, creating a platform for community services, networking and awarding college scholarships to students in technical fields.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Asia Society Northern California and the most unlike its peers is Gilcrease Nature Sanctuary. 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 25 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
40 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. 40 of the 61 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 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds SUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SIMONS LAUFER MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MAITRI ↗
- Who funds THE ASIA SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds INDIASPORA ↗
- Who funds ASIA SOCIETY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds CASA CIRCULO CULTURAL ↗
- Who funds TIE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds EnActe Arts Inc ↗
- Who funds INDIA COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds KHAN ACADEMY INC ↗
- Who funds CAPITAL IIT ALUMNI ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds India Community Center Inc ↗
- Who funds BRIDGE ETHICS & EDUCATION CORP ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CONSERVATORY THEATRE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEXT GEN PERSONAL FINANCE ↗
- Who funds TiE Silicon Valley Inc dba Indus Entrepreneurs ↗
- Who funds CAREMESSAGE ↗
- Who funds Shadhika Project ↗
- Who funds ASIAN PACIFIC FUND ↗
- Who funds ASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE INC ↗
- Who funds IIT ROORKEE HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Motwani Jadeja Family Foundation · Wadhwani Charitable Foundation · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · The Samarth Foundation · The Agarwal Foundation · Shg Foundation · Dhanam Foundation · Krishnan-Shah Family Foundation Inc · The San Francisco 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 Naren & Vinita Gupta 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.
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 Naren & Vinita Gupta Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Naren & Vinita Gupta 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.