Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Amk Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$7.9M
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$4.5M
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

International$21MHealth$5.9MReligion$1.9MFood & Nutrition$1.0MHuman Services$660k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $250k+2 grants · $7.9M
$3,450,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$286M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$4,460,000
BLESS USA$3,450,000
PHOENIX CHILDRENS HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$10,000
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 93% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%PHOENIX CHILDRENS HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%ST ANTHONY MONASTERY: $10k → 11%ST MARY & ST MERCURIUS: $50k → 7%SAINT ANTONY MONASTERY: $20k → 14%COPTIC CHURCH IN HI: $5k → 9%LIGHT FOR ORPHANS: $925k → 6%THE LITTLEST LAMB: $100k → 9%ST MARY & ST MARK: $100k → 17%ST JOHN THE BAPTIST: $50k → 13%COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH OF ST MARK: $10k → 14%ST MARY & ST MERCURIUS: $50k → 16%PHOENIX CHILDRENS HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%ST MARY & ST MERCURIUS: $50k → 7%LIGHT FOR ORPHANS: $770k → 6%THE LITTLEST LAMBS: $50k → 9%ST MARY AND ST MARK'S COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH: $60k → 17%ST MARY & ST MERCURIUS COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH - BRAZIL DIOCESE: $50k → 16%LIGHTS FOR ORPHANS: $220k → 6%LITTLEST LAMBS: $50k → 9%ST MARY & ST MARK: $50k → 17%BLESS USA: $5.0M → 16%LOVE & HOPE BOLIVIA: $4.5M → 16%BLESS USA: $4.1M → 16%BLESS USA: $4.1M → 16%BLESS USA: $3.5M → 16%BLESS USA: $1.9M → 16%LOVE & HOPE BOLIVIA: $1.4M → 16%LOVE & HOPE BOLIVIA: $1.0M → 16%BISHOPRIC OF PUBLIC ECUMENICAL: $380k → 16%LOVE AND HOPE: $300k → 16%LOVE & HOPE: $180k → 16%BISHOPRIC OF PUBLIC ECUMENICAL: $145k → 16%LOVE & HOPE: $50k → 16%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

04

Where the work is directed

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

About 14% of Amk Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.

Amk Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 67% directed abroad (not shown)

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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$30M · 11 repeat orgs$525k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
9

Total granted

$30M
$525k

Still filing today

45%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalHealthOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • BO
    BISHOPRIC OF PUBLIC ECUMENICAL & SOCIAL SERVICES USA INC T/A BLESS USA
    5× · 2020–2024 · $19M · revenue +25% · 85% of their budget
  • LF
    LIGHT FOR ORPHANS CORP
    3× · 2017–2020 · $1.9M · revenue +18% · 31% of their budget
  • LH
    LOVE & HOPE INC LOVE & HOPE INC
    3× · 2017–2020 · $530k · revenue +987% · 40% of their budget

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $220k
  • CM
    COPTIC MISSION
    one grant, 2018 · $100k
  • SM
    ST MARY AND ST MARK'S COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH
    one grant, 2023 · $60k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field
05the grantee network

5 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 5 of the 20 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

BISHOPRIC OF PUBLIC ECUMENICAL & SOCIAL SERVICES USA INC T/A BLESS USA — $18,577,500 · OtherBISHOPRIC OF PUBLIC ECUMENICAL & SOCIAL SERVICES USA INC T/A BLESS USAIndividual grant recipient — $6,910,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient — $1,120,000 · Other+13 more — $1,580,000 · Other+13 moreLIGHT FOR ORPHANS CORP — $1,915,000 · InternationalLIGHT FOR…LOVE & HOPE INC LOVE & HOPE INC — $530,000 · InternationalLOVE & HO…The Littlest Lamb — $200,000 · InternationalThe Littl…Phoenix Children's Hospital Foundation — $20,000 · Health
Other$28,187,500International$2,645,000Health$20,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetBISHOPRIC OF PUBLIC ECUMENICAL & SOCIAL SERVICES USA INC T/A BLESS USA — $18,577,500 over 5y, 85% of budgetLIGHT FOR ORPHANS CORP — $1,915,000 over 3y, 31% of budgetLOVE & HOPE INC LOVE & HOPE INC — $530,000 over 3y, 40% of budgetThe Littlest Lamb — $200,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetPhoenix Children's Hospital Foundation — $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds BISHOPRIC OF PUBLIC ECUMENICAL & SOCIAL SERVICES USA INC T/A BLESS USA
  • Who funds LIGHT FOR ORPHANS CORP
  • Who funds LOVE & HOPE INC LOVE & HOPE INC
  • Who funds The Littlest Lamb
  • Who funds Phoenix Children's Hospital Foundation

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Network for GoodDC9.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization Amk Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 20%6%23%51%90%your share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 20 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph