Skip to content
Ram and Lakshmi Sundaram Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ram and Lakshmi Sundaram Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$116k
Granted FY2025still arriving
18
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

International$152kHealth$145kCommunity Improvement$93kEducation$69kCivil Rights$25kHousing & Shelter$18kHuman Services$16kYouth Development$8kOther$0
02FY2025 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k14 grants · $68k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $48k
$7,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$3.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OUR BISWAS$15,000
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY$12,500
FISTULA FOUNDATION$10,000
MATERNAL HELP HOPE FUND$10,000
FOCUS HOPE$7,500
ARAVIND EYE FOUNDATION$7,500
SANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA$7,500
KARUNA AMERICA$7,500
SHARE AND CARE FOUNDATION$7,000
EDUCATION EMPOWERMENT WOMEN$6,000
WATERAID AMERICA$5,000
ACCOUNTING AID SOCIETY$5,000
HEART AND HOME COLLABORATIVE$4,200
ASTI AMERICAN SERVICE TO INDIA$3,000
DREAMS FOR CHANGE$3,000
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 (FY22–25, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%FOCUS HOPE: $8k → 21%FOCUS HOPE: $6k → 21%FOCUS HOPE: $6k → 21%FOCUS HOPE: $5k → 21%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 9% of Ram and Lakshmi Sundaram Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 41% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 35%.

Ram and Lakshmi Sundaram Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 12% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$521k · 19 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

19 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
1

Total granted

$521k
$2k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+74%
+128%

Still filing today

89%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalHealthCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationPublic BenefitOther
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

  • The Fistula Foundation
    7× · 2019–2025 · $47k · revenue +74%
  • KA
    KARUNA AMERICA
    7× · 2019–2025 · $45k · revenue +144%
  • Accounting Aid Society
    7× · 2019–2025 · $35k · revenue +148%

Funded once

  • BC
    BUILDING COMMUNITY VALUEgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $2k · revenue +128%
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
Asia Initiatives

To leverage the power of social capital to promote health care, education and sustainable development, striving to bring positive change in the quality of life in people in underserved communities. With particular focus on women and their…

Human Services
2
Shadhika Project

Shadhika believes in a future where each person in India can choose their own path to meaning, purpose, and happiness. Through global philanthropy and in-country programming, Shadhika believes that education is the most effective vehicle…

—
3
Educate Girls

Educate Girls promotes and protects the right of girls to a quality education and works by supporting partners in geographies where the need is greatest to mobilize communities, enroll girls into school and improve learning outcomes. Our…

International
4
Sanitation and Health Rights in India

SHRI fights alongside communities to end open defecation as a key step in an ongoing struggle for health equity and soical and economic justice.

International
5
Health Poverty Action Usa

Health Poverty Action USA acts in solidarity with health workers, activists & communities worldwide to improve health & challenge the causes of poverty. We do this in 3 distinct ways: 1. We approach health as an issue of social justice. We…

International
6
Her Next Steps
Human Services
7
Adara Development (Usa)

Our mission is to bridge the world of business and the world of people in extreme poverty, and to support vulnerable communities with health, education and other essential services

International
8
Direct Action for Women Now World-Wide Inc Formerly Indias Daughters Inc
Philanthropy
9
Annapurna Global Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Asha for Education

Our mission is to catalyze socio-econimic change in India through the education of underpriviledged children.

International
11
Vidya Girls Education Foundation
Education
12
Pradiya Foundation

Communities face the same problems all across the world sickness, poverty, social discrimination, environmental injustice, the list goes on.Though incredible organizations have been founded to help solve these issues over decades and…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Share and Care Foundation for India; the most unlike its peers is Building Community Value. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

20 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 20 of the 23 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
13/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OUR BISWAS: $55,000 · InternationalOUR BISWASKARUNA AMERICA: $45,000 · InternationalKARUNA AMERICASHARE AND CARE FOUNDATION FOR INDIA: $31,000 · InternationalSHARE AND CARE FOUNDATION FOR IN…WATERAID AMERICA INC: $12,500 · InternationalWATERAID AMERICA INCDESERVING CAUSES INDIA FOUNDATION: $6,000 · International+2 more: $2,000 · InternationalThe Fistula Foundation: $46,500 · HealthThe Fistula FoundationMaternal Help Hope Fund: $36,000 · HealthMaternal Help Hope FundSANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA: $32,500 · HealthSANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USAFRIENDS OF ARAVIND INC DBA ARAVIND EYE FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 · HealthFRIENDS OF ARAVIND INC DBA ARAV…WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY: $35,000 · OtherWAYNE STATE UN…WOMEN'S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: $30,000 · OtherWOMEN'S BUSINE…ASTI AMERICAN SERVICE TO INDIA: $3,000 · OtherAccounting Aid Society: $35,000 · Community ImprovementAccounting Ai…GRAMEEN AMERICA INC: $28,000 · Community ImprovementGRAMEEN AMERI…+1 more: $1,500 · Community ImprovementFOCUSHOPE: $24,500 · Human ServicesDREAMS FOR CHANGE INC: $15,500 · Human ServicesLADDER UP (F/K/A CITY-WIDE TAX ASSISTANCE PROGRAM): $20,000 · EducationEDUCATION EMPOWERMENT FOR WOMEN: $14,000 · EducationHEART AND HOME COLLABORATIVE: $16,700 · Public BenefitTHREADS FOR SUCCESS: $8,000 · Youth Development
International$151,500Health$145,000Other$68,000Community Improvement$64,500Human Services$40,000Education$34,000Public Benefit$16,700Youth Development$8,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetOUR BISWAS: $55,000 over 7y, 17% of budgetThe Fistula Foundation: $46,500 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetKARUNA AMERICA: $45,000 over 7y, 18% of budgetMaternal Help Hope Fund: $36,000 over 7y, 3.6% of budgetAccounting Aid Society: $35,000 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetSANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA: $32,500 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetSHARE AND CARE FOUNDATION FOR INDIA: $31,000 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetFRIENDS OF ARAVIND INC DBA ARAVIND EYE FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetGRAMEEN AMERICA INC: $28,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetFOCUSHOPE: $24,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetLADDER UP (F/K/A CITY-WIDE TAX ASSISTANCE PROGRAM): $20,000 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetHEART AND HOME COLLABORATIVE: $16,700 over 7y, 3.3% of budgetDREAMS FOR CHANGE INC: $15,500 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetEDUCATION EMPOWERMENT FOR WOMEN: $14,000 over 4y, 9.3% of budgetWATERAID AMERICA INC: $12,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHREADS FOR SUCCESS: $8,000 over 3y, 4.3% of budgetDESERVING CAUSES INDIA FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetBUILDING COMMUNITY VALUE: $1,500 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetDALIT SOLIDARITY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMAIA: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 OUR BISWAS ↗
  • Who funds The Fistula Foundation ↗
  • Who funds KARUNA AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds Maternal Help Hope Fund ↗
  • Who funds Accounting Aid Society ↗
  • Who funds SANKARA EYE FOUNDATION USA ↗
  • Who funds SHARE AND CARE FOUNDATION FOR INDIA ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF ARAVIND INC DBA ARAVIND EYE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds GRAMEEN AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds FOCUSHOPE ↗
  • Who funds LADDER UP (F/K/A CITY-WIDE TAX ASSISTANCE PROGRAM) ↗
  • Who funds HEART AND HOME COLLABORATIVE ↗
  • Who funds DREAMS FOR CHANGE INC ↗
  • Who funds EDUCATION EMPOWERMENT FOR WOMEN ↗
  • Who funds WATERAID AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds THREADS FOR SUCCESS ↗
  • Who funds DESERVING CAUSES INDIA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BUILDING COMMUNITY VALUE ↗
  • Who funds DALIT SOLIDARITY ↗
  • Who funds MAIA ↗

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.

Charities Aid Foundat…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…The Blackbaud Giving …American Online Givin…The Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Charities Aid Foundation AmericaVA9.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Charities Aid Foundation America · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Ram and Lakshmi Sundaram Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ram and Lakshmi Sundaram Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–40%
    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 23 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 Ram and Lakshmi Sundaram’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