Skip to content
The Kiran Bavikatte Memorial Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Kiran Bavikatte Memorial 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.

$12k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$5k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$31kInternational$31kFood & Nutrition$12kArts & Culture$8kHousing & Shelter$6kEducation$6kCivil Rights$5kHuman Services$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$272k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PRAGATHI EMPOWERMENT EDUCATION IN I$5,000
SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN DIGITAL ARCHIV$3,000
NAMI CENTRAL TEXAS$1,000
GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY$1,000
CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK$1,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$750
CHICAGO COMMUNITY TRUST$300
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION$200
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 (FY20–20, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%INDO-AMERICAN CENTER: $2k → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
IL
NY
MA
PA
CT
CA
CO
VA
DC
TX
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.
$88k · 11 repeat orgs$18k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
16

Total granted

$88k
$15k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+11%
+38%

Still filing today

82%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k 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
EducationHealthAnimalsInternationalFood & NutritionArts & CultureOther
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

  • P
    PRAGATHI
    5× · 2017–2024 · $30k · revenue +11%
  • AM
    Active Minds Inc
    3× · 2018–2020 · $16k · revenue +340%
  • NC
    NAMI Central Texas
    3× · 2021–2024 · $14k · revenue +9%

Funded once

  • P
    PRATIDHWANIgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +205% · 31% of their budget
  • IC
    Indo-American Centergraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $2k · revenue +189%
  • HN
    HOMELESS NETWORK OF TEXAS
    one grant, 2021 · $2k · revenue +23%
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
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
2
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
3
Solar Cookers International

The mission of Solar Cookers International is to improve human health, economic well-being, womens empowerment, and the environment by promoting climate-friendly solar cooking for vulnerable populations worldwide.

Environment
4
Project Drawdown

Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…

Education
5
Guttmacher Institute Inc

The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.

—
6
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy

Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.

Food & Nutrition
7
National Geographic Society

To increase and diffuse geographic knowledge in the broadest sense, using the power of science, exploration, education and storytelling to illuminate and protect the wonder of the world.

Education
8
Center for Humane Technology

Center for Humane Technology is a nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that the most consequential technologies actually serve humanity. We bring clarity to how the tech ecosystem works in order to shift the incentives that drive it.

Science & Tech
9
The International Institute On Race Equality and Human Rights

The international institute on race, equality and human rights contributes to the promotion and defense of human rights, through training, technical assistance, advocacy, and strategic litigation conducted at the regional and international…

International
10
Humane World for Animals International

HUMANE WORLD FOR ANIMALS INTERNATIONAL, FKA HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (HSI), works around the globe to promote the human-animal bond, rescue and protect dogs and cats, improve farm animal welfare, protect wildlife, promote animal-free…

Animals
11
Help Animals India

Help Animals India is a 501c3 organization dedicated to improving the lives and welfare of animals by providing financial and consultation to support and build capacity of animal rescue groups in India and Nepal while connecting donors…

Animals
12
Nalanda 20

Improve excellence and access in higher education. Current focus is on India. Thus, Nalanda 2.0's current focus is to make India's higher education system world-class by building a world-class multidisciplinary research university,…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Homeless Network of Texas; the most unlike its peers is Pratidhwani. 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

25 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. 25 of the 31 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/25
Grantees still filing
18/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PRAGATHI: $29,500 · InternationalPRAGATHI+1 more: $100 · InternationalNAMI Central Texas: $14,000 · OtherNAMI Central TexasASIAN FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICE OF AUS: $5,500 · OtherASIAN FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICE OF AUSBEDS PLUS INC: $4,100 · OtherBEDS PLUS INCIndo-American Center: $2,000 · OtherIndo-American CenterHOMELESS NETWORK OF TEXAS: $2,000 · OtherHOMELESS NETWORK OF TEXAS+13 more: $6,225 · Other+13 moreActive Minds Inc: $16,200 · HealthActive Minds IncEMOTIONAL PPE PROJECT INC: $1,000 · HealthEMOTIONAL PPE PROJ…+1 more: $250 · HealthGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $6,000 · Food & NutritionGREATER CHIC…Central Texas Food Bank Inc: $5,900 · Food & NutritionCentral Texa…PRATIDHWANI: $5,000 · Arts & CultureAUSTIN KANNADA SANGHA TX: $1,000 · Arts & CultureNational Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance Inc dba NQAPIA: $5,000 · Civil RightsSOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN DIGITAL ARCHIVE NFP: $3,000 · EducationCHICAGO FREEDOM SCHOOL: $250 · EducationWIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC: $200 · Education
International$29,600Other$33,825Health$17,450Food & Nutrition$11,900Arts & Culture$6,000Civil Rights$5,000Education$3,450

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 budgetPRAGATHI: $29,500 over 5y, 8.3% of budgetActive Minds Inc: $16,200 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetNAMI Central Texas: $14,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $6,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCentral Texas Food Bank Inc: $5,900 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetNational Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance Inc dba NQAPIA: $5,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetPRATIDHWANI: $5,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetBEDS PLUS INC: $4,100 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN DIGITAL ARCHIVE NFP: $3,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetIndo-American Center: $2,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHOMELESS NETWORK OF TEXAS: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $750 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Chicago Community Trust: $550 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetOPENLANDS: $464 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWRIGHT-WAY RESCUE INC: $461 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRETT SYNDROME RESEARCH TRUST INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLEAVE NO TRACE CENTER FOR OUTDOOR ETHICS: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHumane World for Animals Inc: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKARAM FOUNDATION: $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.

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.

The Chicago Community…Paypal Charitable Giv…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…Aetna Foundation IncAbbVie FoundationShell USA Company Fou…American Online Givin…The Blackbaud Giving …The Bank of America C…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
The Chicago Community TrustIL13× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Aetna Foundation Inc · AbbVie Foundation · Shell USA Company Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 The Kiran Bavikatte Memorial Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Kiran Bavikatte Memorial Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 31 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 Kiran Bavikatte Memorial’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