Skip to content
Mukkamala Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Mukkamala Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$48k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0174% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$401kReligion$123kArts & Culture$45kHealth$25kHuman Services$2kInternational$1kPhilanthropy$500Youth Development$400Other$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
$5,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$427k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$20,000
CHINMAYA MISSION WEST$14,500
CHINMAYA MISSION SAN ANTONIO$5,000
TELUGU ASSOCIATION OF NA$5,000
CHINMAYA MISSION FLINT$1,202
BHARATIYA TEMPLE$1,001
ASHTALAKSHMI TEMPLE$1,001
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 81% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%CHINMAYA MISSION WEST: $24k → 8%CHINMAYA MISSION WEST: $15k → 18%ASHTALAKSHMI TEMPLE: $1k → 8%CHINMAYA MISSION SAN ANTONIO: $5k → 16%BHARATIYA TEMPLE: $1k → 8%FLINT INSTITURE OF ART: $5k → 16%TRI CITY HINDU TEMPLE: $1k → 18%CHINMAYA MISSION CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%AAPI: $5k → 7%NORTH AMERICAN TELUGA SOCIETY: $10k → 4%JET USA EDUCATIONAL TRUST: $200k → 8%CHINMAYA MISSION WEST: $19k → 8%SHRI SHIRDI SAI MANDIR: $1k → 8%MOTT COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $500 → 16%NORTH AMERICAN TELUGU SOCIETY: $5k → 4%JET USA EDUCATIONAL TRUST: $60k → 8%CHINMAYA MISSION WEST: $13k → 8%TELUGU ASSOCIATION OF NA: $5k → 8%MOTT COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $500 → 16%JET USA EDUCATIONAL TRUST: $55k → 8%CHINMAYA MISSION WEST: $12k → 8%INDO AMERICAN HEALTH EDUCATION: $25k → 16%JET USA EDUCATIONAL TRUST: $50k → 8%CHINMAYA MAHASAMADHI CAMP: $5k → 8%FLINT DIAPER BANK: $2k → 16%JET USA EDUCATIONAL TRUST: $33k → 8%CHINMAYA MISSION WEST: $4k → 8%CORD USA: $1k → 16%JEEYAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST: $2k → 8%CHINMAYA MISSION WEST: $3k → 8%NRITYANJALI: $201 → 16%CHINMAYA MISSION WEST: $2k → 8%CM SAN JOSE: $5k → 8%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $500 → 16%SILICON ANDHRA: $25k → 8%KASI TEMPLE: $23k → 16%KASI TEMPLE: $20k → 16%KASI TEMPLE: $13k → 16%KASI TEMPLE: $10k → 16%KASI TEMPLE: $10k → 16%KASI TEMPLE: $5k → 16%CHINMAYA MISSION FLINT: $4k → 16%KASI TEMPLE: $2k → 16%CHINMAYA MISSION FLINT: $2k → 16%CHINMAYA MISSION FLINT: $1k → 16%CHINMAYA MISSION FLINT: $1k → 16%CHINMAYA MISSION FLINT: $700 → 16%BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: $400 → 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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$583k · 6 repeat orgs$115k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
19

Total granted

$583k
$103k

Still filing today

0%
26%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Arts & CulturePhilanthropyInternationalEnvironmentReligionOther
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

  • JU
    JET USA EDUCATIONAL TRUST
    5× · 2019–2023 · $398k
  • CM
    CHINMAYA MISSION WEST
    8× · 2017–2025 · $91k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    8× · 2017–2025 · $83k

Funded once

  • IA
    INDO AMERICAN HEALTH EDUCATION
    one grant, 2017 · $25k
  • SA
    SILICON ANDHRA
    one grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue +25%
  • CM
    CHINMAYA MISSION CLEVELAND
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
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
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 29 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
4/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JET USA EDUCATIONAL TRUST: $398,000 · OtherJET USA EDUCATIONAL TRUSTCHINMAYA MISSION WEST: $90,680 · OtherCHINMAYA MISSION WESTIndividual grant recipient: $82,555 · OtherIndividual grant recipientINDO AMERICAN HEALTH EDUCATION: $25,000 · Other+19 more: $68,151 · Other+19 moreSILICON ANDHRA: $25,000 · Arts & CultureFlint Institute of Arts: $5,000 · Arts & CultureTHE FLINT DIAPER BANK INC: $2,000 · PhilanthropyAshtalakshmi Temple: $1,001 · ReligionCORD USA INC: $1,001 · InternationalFlint River Watershed Coalition: $201 · Environment
Other$664,386Arts & Culture$30,000Philanthropy$2,000Religion$1,001International$1,001Environment$201

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSILICON ANDHRA: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetFlint Institute of Arts: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE FLINT DIAPER BANK INC: $2,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetAshtalakshmi Temple: $1,001 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCORD USA INC: $1,001 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFlint River Watershed Coalition: $201 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 SILICON ANDHRA ↗
  • Who funds Flint Institute of Arts ↗
  • Who funds THE FLINT DIAPER BANK INC ↗
  • Who funds Ashtalakshmi Temple ↗
  • Who funds CORD USA INC ↗
  • Who funds Flint River Watershed Coalition ↗

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.

Verizon FoundationThe Bank of America C…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Verizon FoundationNJ11× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Verizon Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Mukkamala Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mukkamala Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Mukkamala Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Mukkamala 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.

    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 29 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mukkamala 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