· Public charity
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation
The ELIZABETH GLASER PEDIATRIC AIDS FOUNDATION (egpaf) is a proven leader in the fight against pediatric hiv/aids and has reached over 33 million pregnant women with services to prevent transmission of hiv to their babies.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 1 grants below total $235,936 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $18,855,361 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $18,619,425 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NO MEANS NO WORLDWIDE | $235,936 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 78% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
Grants abroad, by region — $18M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: TO FURTHER PMTCT AND CARE AND TREATMENT SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.
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. 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +91% since the first grant, against -48% for the ones you funded once.
7 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- NMNO MEANS NO WORLDWIDE7× · 2018–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +165% · 30% of their budget
PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION3× · 2018–2020 · $947k · revenue +91%- IRInternational Rescue Committee INC3× · 2017–2019 · $784k · revenue +81%
Funded once
- PSPOPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONALone grant, 2017 · $279k · revenue -48%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONone grant, 2017 · $53k
- PCPROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONALone grant, 2019 · $48k · revenue -94%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To conduct and support programs and activities aimed at solving some of the world's greatest public health challenges, with a specific focus on enabling health workers to have the greatest possible impact on the health of the people they…
Pathfinder expands access to sexual and reproductive health services, opening the door to opportunities for women and all individuals to thrive-economically, educationally, and civically. driven by our country-led leadership and local…
Global Strategies empowers communities in the most neglected areas of the world to improve the lives of women and children through healthcare.
Health Poverty Action USA acts in solidarity with health workers, activists & communities worldwide to improve health & challenge the causes of poverty. We do this in 3 distinct ways: 1. We approach health as an issue of social justice. We…
Our mission is to improve the performance of health workers and strengthen the systems in which they work.
(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.
Charity: water is a non-profit organization bringing clean and safe water to people around the world. continued on schedule o.
To save lives & relieve suffering through health interventions & related activities that strengthen communities affected by conflict, natural disasters & disease outbreaks.
COHIs mission is to work with women and their communities in times of crisis and disaster to ensure access to quality reproductive, maternal and newborn care. See Sch O for full mission.
Delivering devices and equipment to mid-to-low income countries, to target the prevention and detection of non-communicable diseases. This is specifically focused on impacting the lives of women.
Catalyst Global (formerly known as WCG Cares) is an international non-profit organization committed to increasing access to innovative, high-quality, affordable sexual and reproductive health products and services to facilitate the vibrant…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Engenderhealth Inc and the most unlike its peers is Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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 2017–2025, 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; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 ENGENDERHEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds NO MEANS NO WORLDWIDE ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds D-TREE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS 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.
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% of income from government
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.