Skip to content
Marigowda Nagaraju Md & Renuka Nagaraju Charitable Fam Foundation at a glance

· 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.

$238k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$200k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$1.0MHealth$141kHuman Services$15kCivil Rights$13kEducation$12kYouth Development$3kArts & Culture$500Environment$100Other$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $8k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $200k
$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$5.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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.

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%INDIA MOVEMENT: $200 → 12%INDO-AMERICAN FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKLEY: $5k → 10%CHINMAYA MISSION: $26k → 18%KURUBARA BALAGA: $5k → 11%CLEAN WATER ACTION: $100 → 14%MIU RUN FOR THE RIBBON PROSTATE: $128 → 8%NAYONIKA EYE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST: $30k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $30k → 14%CHINMAYA MISSION: $26k → 16%HINDU SOCIETY OF NORTH CAROLINA: $5k → 8%CHILDRENS MIRACLE NETWORK: $5k → 8%INDO-AMERICAN FOUNDATION: $3k → 10%CARE HOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNT: $10k → 8%FOWAI FORUM: $15k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $10k → 14%GENESEE COUNTY FREE MEDICAL CLINIC: $10k → 16%CHILDRENS MIRACLE NETWORK: $500 → 8%DPTV DETROIT: $125 → 8%BIG FAMILY OF MICHIGAN: $5k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $10k → 14%GEAR UP TO LEAD: $3k → 16%CMNH PARTNER DANCE MARATHON: $500 → 8%RUN FOR THE RIBBON: $320 → 8%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $10k → 14%INSTITUTE OF FLINT: $5k → 16%MIU MENS HEALTH FOUNDATION: $250 → 8%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $10k → 14%INSTITUTE OF FLINT: $600 → 16%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $10k → 14%INSTITUTE OF FLINT: $500 → 16%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $10k → 14%INSTITUTE OF FLINT: $100 → 16%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $5k → 14%KASI TEMPLE: $25k → 16%BHARATIYA TEMPLE: $10k → 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.

Beyond the US: 76% of all-years giving ($950k)

1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
India$950k · 5 grants
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 6 repeat orgs$125k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +202% since the first grant, against +30% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
18

Total granted

$1.1M
$120k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+202%
+30%

Still filing today

50%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
EducationHealthCrime & LegalOther
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

  • UO
    University of Michigan
    8× · 2017–2024 · $95k · revenue +202%
  • IA
    INDO- AMERICAN FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2022–2024 · $13k · revenue +677% · 35% of their budget
  • CM
    CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK
    2× · 2020–2021 · $6k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • NE
    NAYONIKA EYE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST
    one grant, 2021 · $30k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $25k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $15k
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
Laborers International Union of State of Mi

Collective bargaining and representation

—
2
Business Leaders for Michigan

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.…

—
3
Business Leaders for Michigan Foundation

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.…

Community Improvement
4
American Federation of Labor Ohio Afl-Cio

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…

—
5
Michigan State Afl-Cio

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…

—
6
Michigan State Afl-Cio Workforce Development Institute

To apply the principles of workforce development to grow michigan's economy while improving the lives of michigan workers.

Employment
7
Communications Workers of America Local 1038

Labor Union

—
8
Committee of Interns and Residents

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…

—
9
Acecmichigan

Association of consulting engineers

—
10
Michigan Federation for Children and Families

To develop and promote programs, funding, etc. for children and families.

—
11
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 876

Labor union representing food and commercial workers, primarily in southeast michigan.

—
12
Mymichigan Health Foundation

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…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Miracle Network; 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.
04the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 26 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NAGARAJU CHARITABLE TRUST: $950,000 · OtherNAGARAJU CHARITABLE TRUSTUniversity of Michigan: $95,000 · OtherUniversity of MichiganCHINMAYA MISSION: $51,500 · Other+19 more: $123,573 · Other+19 moreGENESEE COUNTY FREE MEDICAL CLINIC: $10,000 · HealthCAREHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY INC: $10,000 · Crime & LegalBIG FAMILY OF MICHIGAN INC: $5,000 · EducationTROY ROTARY FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Education
Other$1,220,073Health$10,000Crime & Legal$10,000Education$6,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUniversity of Michigan: $95,000 over 8y, 6.2% of budgetINDO- AMERICAN FOUNDATION INC: $12,500 over 2y, 35% of budgetGENESEE COUNTY FREE MEDICAL CLINIC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetCAREHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK: $5,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBIG FAMILY OF MICHIGAN INC: $5,000 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetGEARUP2LEAD: $2,500 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetTROY ROTARY FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetCLEAN WATER ACTION: $100 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 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 ↗

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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA3.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Marigowda Nagaraju Md & Renuka Nagaraju Charitable Fam Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Marigowda Nagaraju Md & Renuka Nagaraju Charitable Fam Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 26 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 Marigowda Nagaraju Md & Renuka Nagaraju Charitable Fam’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