Skip to content

· Private foundation

Baringo House Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$7k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

75% of Baringo House Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to American Online Giving Foundation Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

3
’21
3
’22
2
’23
2
’24
0
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

International$13kEducation$9kYouth Development$5kFood & Nutrition$2kHealth$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,313
Median grant
2
States reached
$134k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION$5,000
KABARAK UNIVERSITY$1,313
Individual grant recipient$400
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION: $5k → 10%BELLARMINE COLLEGE PREP: $5k → 8%TIBA FOUNDATION: $12k → 10%GIVE SMART ATLANTA: $520 → 13%JUST GIVING ALZHEIMERS: $400 → 14%DREAM VOLUNTEERS: $3k → 8%DREAM VOLUNTEERS: $2k → 8%THE TECH INTERACTIVE: $1k → 8%THE TECH INTERACTIVE: $500 → 8%SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $205 → 8%COMMUNITY SEVA: $1k → 8%COMMUNITY SEVA: $1k → 8%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.

24%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8k · 3 repeat orgs$25k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$8k
$23k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-16%
+34%

Still filing today

100%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

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

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

’21’22’23’24’25
EducationFood & NutritionInternationalArts & CultureHealthOther
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

  • DV
    DREAM VOLUNTEERS
    2× · 2021–2022 · $5k · revenue -9%
  • CS
    Community Seva Inc
    2× · 2021–2022 · $2k · revenue -17%
  • TT
    THE TECH INTERACTIVE
    2× · 2023–2024 · $2k · revenue -16%

Funded once

  • TF
    Tiba Foundation
    one grant, 2024 · $12k · revenue 0%
  • BC
    BELLARMINE COLLEGE PREP
    one grant, 2021 · $5k
  • DE
    Daraja Education Fundgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $3k · revenue +34%
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
The Desai Foundation
Education
2
The Serengeti Foundation
Environment
3
Seva Foundation

Seva foundation partners worldwide to create self-sustaining programs that preserve and restore sight. our vision is a world free of avoidable blindness.

International
4
The Shaare Dina Charitable Trust
—
5
Shraman Foundation
Arts & Culture
6
Annapurna Global Foundation
Philanthropy
7
The Sheth Sangreal Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Seva Charities
Housing & Shelter
9
Satyagraha Foundation
Religion
10
Thaakat Foundation

Thaakat Foundation promotes a collaborative, people and planet friendly approach to fighting global poverty. Working in remote and underserved communities around the world, we rebuild broken health and education infrastructures to help…

International
11
Alphamundi Foundation Inc

Alphamundi foundation, inc. (the foundation) is a washington, dc based non-profit with a mission to strengthen the long-term commercial viability of smes in africa and latin america to drive economic transformation. this leads to more jobs…

International
12
The Swaha Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Seva Inc; the most unlike its peers is Second Harvest of Silicon Valley. 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

8 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. 8 of the 13 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Tiba Foundation: $12,000 · InternationalTiba FoundationBELLARMINE COLLEGE PREP: $5,000 · OtherBELLARMINE COLLEGE PREPKABARAK UNIVERSITY: $1,313 · OtherKABARAK UNIVERSITYVARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IN KENYA: $999 · OtherVARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IN K…Individual grant recipient: $520 · OtherIndividual grant recipie…Individual grant recipient: $400 · OtherDREAM VOLUNTEERS: $4,500 · EducationDREAM VOLUNTEERSDaraja Education Fund: $2,500 · EducationDaraja Education FundAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN ONLINE…Community Seva Inc: $2,000 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $205 · Food & NutritionSALONI HEART FOUNDATION: $1,807 · HealthTHE TECH INTERACTIVE: $1,500 · Arts & Culture
International$12,000Other$8,232Education$7,000Philanthropy$5,000Food & Nutrition$2,205Health$1,807Arts & Culture$1,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTiba Foundation: $12,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDREAM VOLUNTEERS: $4,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetDaraja Education Fund: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCommunity Seva Inc: $2,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSALONI HEART FOUNDATION: $1,807 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetTHE TECH INTERACTIVE: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $205 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 Bank of America Charitable Foundation IncNC10.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Baringo House Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Baringo House Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 13 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 Baringo House’s filings →

    More from the funding graph