Skip to content
Connecther at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Connecther

In our quest to alleviate poverty and advance women and girls globally, CONNECTHER provides a diverse communication platform, including the CONNECTHER film festival, to spotlight critical issues facing women and children throughout the world, and

$118k
Granted FY2023
1
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$6k
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 2023.

International$117kHealth$29kEducation$28kEnvironment$20kHuman Services$13kCivil Rights$5k
02FY2023 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $6,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $117,921 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $111,921 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.
$6,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$256k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROHINGYA WOMEN'S DEVELOPMNET NETWORK$6,000
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 (FY17–17, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE CITIZENS FDN: $7k → 14%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

IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
CA
DC
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $197k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions, $101k to organizations and $96k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Middle East and North Africa$111k · 57% · 4 grants · 305 people

Stated purpose: RELIEF · SCHOLARSHIPS · FELLOWSHIPS

South Asia$50k · 25% · 2 grants · 238 people

Stated purpose: HAZERAS HOUSE · SCHLARSHIPS · SCHOLARSHIPS

Sub-Saharan Africa$23k · 12% · 271 people

Stated purpose: SCHOLARSHIPS · FELLOWSHIPS

East Asia and the Pacific$10k · 5% · 61 people

Stated purpose: SCHOLARSHIPS · FELLOWSHIPS

South America$4k · 2% · 2 people

Stated purpose: SCHOLARSHIPS

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.

71%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$152k · 4 repeat orgs$61k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +168% since the first grant, against +156% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2023, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
5

Total granted

$152k
$55k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+168%
+156%

Still filing today

75%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’22’23
PhilanthropyInternationalEducationHealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • C
    CONNECTHER
    2× · 2017–2018 · $55k · revenue +190%
  • CH
    CREATING HOPE INTERNATIONAL
    4× · 2017–2022 · $50k · revenue +15%
  • AU
    ASIAN UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN (AUW) SUPPORT FOUNDATION
    3× · 2017–2020 · $28k · revenue +168%

Funded once

  • IS
    Ian Somerhalder Foundation
    one grant, 2019 · $20k · revenue -100%
  • BU
    BRAC USA INC
    one grant, 2018 · $12k · revenue -18%
  • CF
    CHILDLIFE FOUNDATION AMERICA Igraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +361%
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
Child Health Foundation

Support and Research Major Problems in Child Health Globally

International
2
Invisible Light Foundation
International
3
Nasrulla Haque Foundation
—
4
The Khaan Foundation
Food & Nutrition
5
Sonar Bangla Foundation

Our mission is to build a world-class research-based university in bangladesh and contribute to the development of the nation through teaching and research excellence, with the subsequent goal of replicating this education model in other…

Health
6
Annapurna Global Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Al Ansaar Foundation for Humanity
Philanthropy
8
International Humanity Foundation
Philanthropy
9
The Noor Foundation
Philanthropy
10
World Health Foundation
—
11
Hope International

Provide free medical assistance to poor people in 3rd world countries

International
12
International Charitable Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Citizens Foundation Usa; the most unlike its peers is Ian Somerhalder Foundation. 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, 2017–2025.

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. 8 of the 10 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONNECTHER: $55,201 · PhilanthropyCONNECTHERCHILDLIFE FOUNDATION AMERICA I: $10,192 · PhilanthropyCHILDLIFE FOUNDATION AMERICA ICREATING HOPE INTERNATIONAL: $49,934 · InternationalCREATING HOPE INTERNATIONALBRAC USA INC: $12,000 · InternationalBRAC USA INCIan Somerhalder Foundation: $20,000 · OtherIan Somerhalder …ROHINGYA WOMEN DEVELOPMENT NETWORK: $6,000 · OtherROHINGYA WOMEN D…ROZARIA MEMORIAL TRUST: $5,250 · OtherROZARIA MEMORIAL…ASIAN UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN (AUW) SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $27,938 · EducationASIAN UNIVERSI…EDNA ADAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $18,805 · HealthEDNA ADAN …THE CITIZENS FOUNDATION USA: $7,363 · Human Services
Philanthropy$65,393International$61,934Other$31,250Education$27,938Health$18,805Human Services$7,363

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCONNECTHER: $55,201 over 2y, 14% of budgetCREATING HOPE INTERNATIONAL: $49,934 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetASIAN UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN (AUW) SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $27,938 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetIan Somerhalder Foundation: $20,000 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetEDNA ADAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $18,805 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetBRAC USA INC: $12,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDLIFE FOUNDATION AMERICA I: $10,192 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTHE CITIZENS FOUNDATION USA: $7,363 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA8.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Connecther funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Connecther. Bigger dots raise more.

2022
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–20%
    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 Connecther?

    Find your warmest path to Connecther 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 10 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $309k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Connecther’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