Skip to content

· Public charity

Cnfa

To stimulate economic growth and improve livelihoods by cultivating entrepreneurship.

$17M
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$834k
Largest
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.

Food & Nutrition$15MInternational$11MCommunity Improvement$3.4MPublic Safety & Disaster$3.0MHealth$2.9M
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $4,192,474, the rows itemized in this filing. The $16,940,819 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $12,748,345 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k2 grants · $317k
  • $250k+7 grants · $3.9M
$353,743
Median grant
6
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORP (AMALIMA LOKO)$833,501
MERCY CORPS (AMALIMA LOKO)$819,965
HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL (HKI)-NIGER YALWA$658,525
J E AUSTIN ASSOCIATES INC (NIGERIA AG - INVEST )$628,065
THE MANOFF GROUP (JSI) (AMALIMA AND LOKO)$353,743
DEVELOPMENT GATEWAY INC$306,309
HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL (HKI) - MALI SUGU YIRIWA$274,911
MARKETSHARE ASSOCIATES INC (RWANDA HINGA WUNGUKE)$231,412
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC$86,043
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 (FY17–19, $3.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SNV USA: $1.7M → 8%SNV USA: $1.1M → 8%SNV USA: $164k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
OR
IN
CA
CO
VA
MD
DE
AZ
AR
DC
GA
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $12M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$8.7M · 71% · 55 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAMMATIC SUPPORT · SUPPORTING COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY

Russia and Neighboring States$3.2M · 26% · 96 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAMMATIC SUPPORT

Middle East and North Africa$225k · 2% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAMMATIC SUPPORT

Armenia$137k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: PROGRAMMATIC SUPPORT

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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 21% of Cnfa’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 23% of the giving stays in DC; by stated purpose, 15%.

Cnfalessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 25% 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.
$34M · 21 repeat orgs$484k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +16% since the first grant, against -18% for those funded once.

21 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
4

Total granted

$34M
$398k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
-18%

Still filing today

48%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $86k 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
InternationalHuman ServicesScience & TechSocial ScienceOther
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

  • IM
    INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $5.9M · revenue +82%
  • HK
    HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL
    5× · 2020–2024 · $3.2M · revenue +47%
  • DG
    DEVELOPMENT GATEWAY INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +5%

Funded once

  • AI
    AgriCorps Inc
    one grant, 2020 · $257k · revenue -18% · 67% of their budget
  • NA
    NATHAN ASSOCIATES INC
    one grant, 2020 · $81k
  • AS
    ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2017 · $32k
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
International Development Enterprises

See schedule o for a more detailed description of ide's mission statement and achievements.

International
2
International Center for Research On Women

The international center for research for women (icrw) is a global research institute, with a mission to advance rights and opportunities for women, girls, and structurally excluded populations with actionable evidence and solutions.

International
3
International Crisis Group

Crisis group works to prevent and resolve deadly conflict around the world by informing and influencing the perceptions and actions of policymakers and other key conflict actors. to this end, we endeavour to talk to all sides and provide…

International
4
Actionaid Usa

Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…

Social Science
5
International Aids Vaccine Initiative Inc

A global nonprofit biomedical research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.

International
6
Counterpart International Inc

For over 60 years, counterpart international has partnered with communities worldwide to turn local ideas into lasting solutions, connecting local vision with global opportunity. (continued on schedule o)we believe people closest to the…

International
7
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists Inc

International consortium of investigative journalists, inc.'s (icij) mission is to show people how the world really works through stories that rock the world; forcing positive change.

International
8
International Budget Partnership

Ibp works with civil society, governments, international institutions and the private sector to bring about a world in which empowered citizens participate in open, inclusive public budgeting processes to shape policies and practices that…

International
9
Accion International

Our mission is to create a fair and inclusive economy where underserved people have quality financial choices and opportunities to improve their economic well-being. we find and help build innovative companies with the potential to reach…

International
10
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

The mission of the global alliance for improved nutrition (gain) is to improve the consumption of healthier diets for all, especially the most vulnerable, by improving the availability, affordability, desirability, and sustainability of…

Food & Nutrition
11
Intrahealth International Inc

Our mission is to improve the performance of health workers and strengthen the systems in which they work.

Health
12
Partners in Food Solutions

Improve the food value chain in developing countries by mobilizing corporate volunteers to share knowledge and expertise with small and growing food processors.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Innovations for Poverty Action a Nonprofit Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Devworks International. 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

13 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. 13 of the 27 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
9/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JE AUSTIN: $4,057,443 · OtherJE AUSTINMERCY CORPS (AMALIMA LOKO): $3,278,057 · OtherMERCY CORPS (AMALIMA LOKO)THE MANOFF GROUP INC: $2,198,837 · OtherTHE MANOFF GROUP INCCATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES: $1,419,183 · OtherCATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICESCONNEXUS CORPORATION (NIGERIA AG - INVEST ): $1,306,702 · OtherCONNEXUS CORPORATION (NIGERIA AG - INVEST )AFRICARE: $1,233,503 · OtherAFRICAREMARKETSHARE ASSOCIATES INC (RWANDA HINGA WUNGUKE): $789,028 · Other+8 more: $1,792,892 · Other+8 moreINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS: $5,888,084 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPSHELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL: $3,182,573 · InternationalHELEN KELLER INTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT GATEWAY INC: $1,563,075 · InternationalDEVELOPMENT GATEWAY INCCENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INC: $1,381,397 · InternationalCENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INCPLAN INTERNATIONAL USA INC: $1,357,142 · InternationalPLAN INTERNATIONAL USA INCWINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: $591,023 · InternationalCOOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC: $567,608 · International+2 more: $348,812 · InternationalDEVWORKS INTERNATIONAL: $3,036,970 · Human ServicesDEVWORKS …GLOBAL COLD CHAIN FOUNDATION: $776,228 · Science & TechINNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $280,254 · Social Science
Other$16,075,645International$14,879,714Human Services$3,036,970Science & Tech$776,228Social Science$280,254

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 budgetINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS: $5,888,084 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetHELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL: $3,182,573 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetDEVWORKS INTERNATIONAL: $3,036,970 over 3y, 13% of budgetDEVELOPMENT GATEWAY INC: $1,563,075 over 3y, 8.1% of budgetCENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INC: $1,381,397 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetPLAN INTERNATIONAL USA INC: $1,357,142 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetAFRICARE: $1,233,503 over 4y, 3.8% of budgetGLOBAL COLD CHAIN FOUNDATION: $776,228 over 7y, 9.0% of budgetWINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: $591,023 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetCOOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC: $567,608 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetINNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $280,254 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetAgriCorps Inc: $256,560 over 1y, 67% of budgetINSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC: $92,252 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.

  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS ↗
  • Who funds HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds DEVWORKS INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds DEVELOPMENT GATEWAY INC ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INC ↗
  • Who funds PLAN INTERNATIONAL USA INC ↗
  • Who funds AFRICARE ↗
  • Who funds GLOBAL COLD CHAIN FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ↗
  • Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
  • Who funds INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds AgriCorps Inc ↗
  • Who funds INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC ↗

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.

Gates FoundationWA14.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Gates Foundation · 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 Cnfa funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cnfa. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%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
    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 27 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 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 Cnfa’s filings →

    More from the funding graph