Loading…
Loading…
Michigan · Nonprofit
KENYAN URITHI EDUCATION FUND (Michigan) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $119,319 in grants to it, the largest being Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund ($62,050). 4 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
KENYAN URITHI EDUCATION FUND has grown faster than half of the 6,617 education nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 6,617 education nonprofits $100k–$1M, FY2025
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $6k → $16k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
4 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 94% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of KENYAN URITHI EDUCATION FUND’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
KENYAN URITHI EDUCATION FUND leans on a few funders — its largest provides 52% of grant income and the top three 94%; half comes from just 1 funder.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 1 funder to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 100% · 2018 51% · 2019 100% · 2020 71% · 2021 83% · 2022 41% · 2023 100% · 2024 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
KENYAN URITHI EDUCATION FUND draws 99% of its grant income from funders outside Michigan — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 5 states in all.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
74%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 2 states
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2025 (financials across 2020–2025), and the filings of 6funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing