· Private foundation
End World Hunger
TO EDUCATE AND INSPIRE PEOPLE OF CONSCIENCE IN A EFFORT TO END WORLD HUNGER 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $2k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $35k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Foundation for Lake Chapala Chariti | $15,000 |
| The Garden Edge | $10,000 |
| CWS Global Inc | $10,000 |
| Chicuchas Wasi | $1,700 |
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% 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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 18% of End World Hunger’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 32% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 24% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
4 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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 FY2025, 32% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k 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
- TGThe Gardens Edge Inc5× · 2018–2025 · $40k · revenue -51%
- GFGARDENS FOR HEALTH INTERNATIONAL2× · 2020–2021 · $30k · revenue -15%
- CWCHICUCHAS WASI3× · 2021–2025 · $24k · revenue -22%
Funded once
- SSSONOMA SPRINGS COMMONSone grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue -16%
- GOGARDENS OF HEALTHone grant, 2018 · $12k
- FFISHone grant, 2018 · $5k
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.
Within the Americas promoting dialogue and research, producing studies and reports, conducting courses and conferences particularly in the areas of agroecology and food security
MESA connects and cultivates sustainable farmers and food systems leaders around the world.
To promote health in the underserved rural communities of Peru's Sacred Valley.
We are dedicated to providing real impact for those that need it most. We aim to improve the incomes of hundreds of thousands of farming families and the nutrition of millions.
Worldwide Opportunities on Organic Farms, USA (WWOOF-USA) is part of a worldwide effort to link visitors with organic farmers, promote an educational exchange, and build a global community conscious of ecological farming practices.
The Deep Medicine Circle is a nonprofit organization dedicated to healing the wounds of colonialism through food, medicine, story and learning. Starting from a place of correcting relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people,…
Our mission is to teach and empower people and communities to increase their health, wellbeing, and self-reliance by growing food for themselves and others, organically and sustainably. (Continued on Schedule O, line 07.)
Development in Gardening is improving the nutrition and livelihoods of some of the world's most uniquely marginalized people by teaching them to plant regenerative gardens that grow health, wealth, and a sense of belonging.
Groundswell International strenghtens communities to build healthy farming and food systems from the ground up.
Working together to create a just and sustainable world through transformative farmer training that nourishes communities and the Earth.
Clinica de Salud del Valle de Salinas (CSVS) is dedicated to providing access to quality comprehensive health care to men, women and children with an emphasis on farm worker families and the agricultural community.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Ceres Community Project and the most unlike its peers is Church World Service Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 14 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 The Gardens Edge Inc ↗
- Who funds GARDENS FOR HEALTH INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds CHICUCHAS WASI ↗
- Who funds CHURCH WORLD SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds SONOMA SPRINGS COMMONS ↗
- Who funds SONOMA VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE CERES COMMUNITY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Sonoma Ecology Center ↗
- Who funds ONE ACRE FUND ↗
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: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 End World Hunger 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to End World Hunger?
Find your warmest path to End World Hunger 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.