Skip to content
Botla Charitable Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Botla Charitable Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$54kEducation$26kCivil Rights$17kInternational$15kArts & Culture$10kHuman Services$3kAnimals$3kHealth$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$88k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ANUJA SA$1,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–24, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT: $113 → 14%ANUJA SA: $2k → 16%ANUJA SA: $2k → 16%ANJUA SA: $1k → 16%ANJUA SA: $1k → 16%ANUJA SA: $1k → 16%MEALS ON WHEELS: $250 → 16%MEALS ON WHEELS: $100 → 16%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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$124k · 18 repeat orgs$38k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +41% since the first grant, against +24% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 17 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
14

Total granted

$124k
$38k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+41%
+24%

Still filing today

39%
21%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHuman ServicesInternationalHealthOther
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

  • AE
    AUM EDUCATION SOCIETY OF TEXAS
    3× · 2020–2022 · $23k · revenue +16%
  • AS
    ANUJA SA INC
    5× · 2018–2024 · $7k · revenue +232%
  • KS
    KEYSTONE SCHOOL
    3× · 2017–2019 · $3k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
  • S
    SVVFUIP
    one grant, 2019 · $5k
  • V
    VVM
    one grant, 2020 · $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.

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
Sai Charities of Austin

Exempt Purpose - Sai Charities purpose is to serve the underpriviledged and needy with food programs, necessities in life, including education programs in Austin, Texas, nationally, and internationally to uplift those who are in need.…

Human Services
2
The Breakfast Revolution

To fight the epidemic of malnutrition in india. we manufacture and distribute affordable, tasty, and power-packed meals that are proven to treat malnutrition

International
3
Society for Assistance International

To support all charitable and religious causes for the welfare of the poor and needy with no discrimination

International
4
Global Educ Campaign

Dosti sets up and manages schools in asian countries

Philanthropy
5
Sana Akhirah Foundation

Sana akhirah foundation is a locally based non profit organization in texas and it primary helps the people in hunger, education and skill development in local communities and in india.

Philanthropy
6
Vedanta Institute Houston

Education

Arts & Culture
7
Ek Kadam Aur

Transforming lives of underprivileged children through education, technology, healthcare programs, and connection with a global network of qualified volunteers and mentors.

International
8
Anandamayi Adhyatmika Vidya Nilayam

Support Free Education in Sanskrit and other Indian languages and Vedic literature teaching.

Arts & Culture
9
India Awareness Foundation Inc

Public education

Education
10
Swami Dayanand Education Foundation
Education
11
Shivalli Kutumba of North America Inc

Celebrate and encourage participation of the association members in social and cultural events.To raise, solicit, and collect funds either directly by voluntary contributions from members or in cooperation with other not-for-profit…

Arts & Culture
12
Education for Everyone

Providing education for people who can not afford it in india

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Keystone School; the most unlike its peers is Meals On Wheels. 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

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 32 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SRI SHIRDI SAI BABA TEMPLE OF SA: $25,000 · OtherSRI SHIRDI SAI BABA TEMPLE OF SAIndividual grant recipient: $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientHINDU TEMPLE OF SAN ANTONIO: $19,066 · OtherHINDU TEMPLE OF SAN ANTONIOTASA: $15,350 · OtherTASASHRI SHIRDI SAI BABA TEMPLE OF SAN: $9,750 · OtherSHRI SHIRDI SAI BABA TEMPLE OF SANSVVFUIP: $5,000 · Other+17 more: $15,458 · Other+17 moreAUM EDUCATION SOCIETY OF TEXAS: $22,500 · EducationAUM EDUCATION SOC…KEYSTONE SCHOOL: $2,732 · EducationKEYSTONE SCHOOL+1 more: $250 · EducationMATHRUBHUMI: $13,500 · InternationalMATHRUBHU…+1 more: $365 · InternationalANUJA SA INC: $6,500 · Human ServicesMEALS ON WHEELS: $350 · Human Services+1 more: $113 · Human ServicesBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $500 · Health
Other$114,624Education$25,482International$13,865Human Services$6,963Health$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 budgetAUM EDUCATION SOCIETY OF TEXAS: $22,500 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetMATHRUBHUMI: $13,500 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetANUJA SA INC: $6,500 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetKEYSTONE SCHOOL: $2,732 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAN ANTONIO FOOD BANK: $450 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEKAL VIDYALAYA FOUNDATION OF USA: $365 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS: $350 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS OF SAN ANTONIO: $250 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC: $113 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds AUM EDUCATION SOCIETY OF TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds MATHRUBHUMI ↗
  • Who funds ANUJA SA INC ↗
  • Who funds KEYSTONE SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
  • Who funds SAN ANTONIO FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds EKAL VIDYALAYA FOUNDATION OF USA ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS OF SAN ANTONIO ↗
  • Who funds WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC ↗

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.

Sri & Madhavi Beeram …American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Sri & Madhavi Beeram FoundationTX13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sri & Madhavi Beeram Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Botla Charitable Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Botla Charitable Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Wounded Warrior Project Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
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 32 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Botla Charitable Family’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