Skip to content
Compassion International Incorporated at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Compassion International Incorporated

Compassion exists to release children from poverty in Jesus' name.

$635M
Granted FY2019
2
Grants FY2019
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2019.

Religion$120kHuman Services$85kEducation$60k
02FY2019 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $20,075, the rows itemized in this filing. The $635,146,808 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $635,126,733 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.
$10,075
Median grant
2
States reached
$364M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
New Life Church - Royal Kids$10,075
Porter's Call$10,000
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 (FY18–18, $40k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Made in Hope: $40k → 9%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $713M on the FY2019 return

Schedule F, as filed: 8 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$288M · 40% · 9 grants

Stated purpose: Child Development

Central America and the Caribbean$151M · 21% · 7 grants

Stated purpose: Child Development

South America$142M · 20% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: Child Development

East Asia and the Pacific$98M · 14% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: Child Development · Advocacy

North America (Canada and Mexico)$18M · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Child Development

South Asia$17M · 2% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: Child Development

Middle East and North Africa$30k · 0% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Advocacy

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$10k · 0% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Advocacy

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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

53%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$140k · 3 repeat orgs$125k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +132% since the first grant, against +68% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2019, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
3

Total granted

$140k
$115k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+132%
+68%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
Human ServicesReligionEducationYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • LC
    LAUSANNE COMMITTEE FOR WORLD EVANGELIZATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $70k · revenue +132%
  • LI
    LOGOSDOR INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $40k · revenue -74%
  • PC
    PORTERS CALL
    3× · 2017–2019 · $30k · revenue +143%

Funded once

  • LB
    LANCASTER BIBLE COLLEGEgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $60k · revenue +33%
  • MI
    MADE IN HOPEgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $40k · revenue +68%
  • TC
    The Christian Home For Children Incgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue +225%
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
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 7 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LAUSANNE COMMITTEE FOR WORLD EVANGELIZATION: $70,000 · ReligionLAUSANNE COMMITTEE FOR WORLD …MADE IN HOPE: $40,000 · Human ServicesMADE IN HOPEPORTERS CALL: $30,000 · Human ServicesPORTERS CALLLANCASTER BIBLE COLLEGE: $60,000 · EducationLANCASTER BIBLE COLLEGELOGOSDOR INC: $40,000 · Youth DevelopmentLOGOSDOR INCThe Christian Home For Children Inc: $14,765 · OtherThe Christ…NEW LIFE CHURCH: $10,075 · OtherNEW LIFE C…
Religion$70,000Human Services$70,000Education$60,000Youth Development$40,000Other$24,840

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLAUSANNE COMMITTEE FOR WORLD EVANGELIZATION: $70,000 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetLANCASTER BIBLE COLLEGE: $60,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLOGOSDOR INC: $40,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetPORTERS CALL: $30,000 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetThe Christian Home For Children Inc: $14,765 over 1y, 5.6% 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.

Natl Christian Charit…Raymond James Charita…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA12.5× affinity7 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · 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 Compassion International Incorporated funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Compassion International Incorporated. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%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 · 0–15%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Compassion International Incorporated?

    Find your warmest path to Compassion International Incorporated through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 7 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Compassion International’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