· Private foundation
Marigowda Nagaraju Md & Renuka Nagaraju Charitable Fam 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.
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 $10k4 grants · $8k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $200k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NAGARAJU CHARITABLE TRUST | $200,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | $30,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKLEY | $5,000 |
| INDO-AMERICAN FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| INSTITUTE OF FLINT | $600 |
| MIU RUN FOR THE RIBBON PROSTATE | $128 |
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 — 24% of grant dollars ($296k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 76% that went abroad ($950k) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 98% of your 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.
Beyond the US — 76% of all-years giving ($950k)
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 +202% since the first grant, against +30% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 2 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, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- UOUniversity of Michigan8× · 2017–2024 · $95k · revenue +202%
- IAINDO- AMERICAN FOUNDATION INC2× · 2022–2024 · $13k · revenue +677% · 35% of their budget
- CMCHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK2× · 2020–2021 · $6k · revenue +33%
Funded once
- NENAYONIKA EYE CARE CHARITABLE TRUSTone grant, 2021 · $30k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $25k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $15k
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.
Collective bargaining and representation
Business leaders for michigan is a nonprofit, nonpartisan statewide organization driven by ceos from the state's leading employers, all working toward a shared goal: making michigan a top 10 state for jobs, talent and a thriving economy.…
Business leaders for michigan is a nonprofit, nonpartisan statewide organization driven by ceos from the state's leading employers, all working toward a shared goal: making michigan a top 10 state for jobs, talent and a thriving economy.…
To advance middle class and working class values by promoting social and economic justice. we join together over 263,000 union members to make our voice heard in the policy and political arenas. the ohio afl-cio represents 1,787 local…
Consistent with our trade union philosophy and tradition of advocating social and economic justice for all, we also see representing the unemployed, under-employed, and low income people as part of our mission. whether organized or yet to…
To apply the principles of workforce development to grow michigan's economy while improving the lives of michigan workers.
Labor Union
Organize and promote better working conditions and collectively bargain for membership (interns & residents) as well as potential members. to promote fair labor practices and advocate on behalf of members for the improvement of overall…
Association of consulting engineers
To develop and promote programs, funding, etc. for children and families.
Labor union representing food and commercial workers, primarily in southeast michigan.
The corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively for charitable, educational and scientific purposes by conducting or supporting activites exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Miracle Network and the most unlike its peers is Indo- American Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 26 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 University of Michigan ↗
- Who funds INDO- AMERICAN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GENESEE COUNTY FREE MEDICAL CLINIC ↗
- Who funds CAREHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK ↗
- Who funds BIG FAMILY OF MICHIGAN INC ↗
- Who funds GEARUP2LEAD ↗
- Who funds TROY ROTARY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CLEAN WATER ACTION ↗
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: 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 Marigowda Nagaraju Md & Renuka Nagaraju Charitable Fam 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.