Skip to content
Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders

Foundation for Women & Girls with Blood Disorders works to ensure all women and girls with blood disorders are correctly diagnosed and optimally managed at every life stage.

$154k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$35k
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$325kEducation$257kScience & Tech$35kInternational$35kArts & Culture$35k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $143,392, the rows itemized in this filing. The $153,583 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,191 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $136k
$32,309
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
University Health Network$35,000
Massachusetts General Hospita$35,000
University of North Carolina$32,309
University of Utah$17,500
Brigham & Womens Hospital$16,083
Ottawa Hospital Research Inst$7,500
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.

US giving: 89% of grant dollars ($615k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 11% that went abroad ($73k) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 52% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 14%Brigham & Womens Hospital: $16k → 16%Childrens Hospital of Pennsy: $35k → 22%WEILL MED COLLEGE CORNELL UN: $35k → 17%University of Texas: $23k → 10%BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: $35k → 16%CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL DBA CHILDRENS RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $15k → 15%University of Utah: $35k → 12%BLOOD CENTER OF WISCONSIN: $35k → 17%OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIV: $35k → 12%VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER: $15k → 14%Duke University: $15k → 11%University of North Carolina: $32k → 13%East Carolina University: $18k → 20%CHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE OF ATLANTA: $26k → 14%ANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMPUS OFFICE OF GRANT AND CONTRACTS: $35k → 10%Brigham & Womens Hospital: $8k → 16%BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: $18k → 16%University of Utah: $33k → 12%University of North Carolina: $18k → 13%East Carolina University: $18k → 20%LUICK RESEARCH FUND: $35k → 16%BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: $15k → 16%University of Utah: $18k → 12%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

WI
NY
MA
OR
PA
UT
CO
MO
TN
NC
GA
TX

Beyond the US: 11% of all-years giving ($73k)

2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
Canada$58k · 3 grants
Jamaica$15k · 1 grant
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

40%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$261k · 5 repeat orgs$391k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
13

Total granted

$261k
$314k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+77%

Still filing today

20%
23%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 46% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $78k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthOther
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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
    3× · 2021–2025 · $85k
  • BC
    Baylor College of Medicine
    3× · 2020–2024 · $68k · revenue +47%
  • UO
    University of North Carolina
    2× · 2023–2025 · $50k

Funded once

  • CH
    Childrens Hospital of Pennsy
    one grant, 2021 · $35k
  • VW
    VERSITI WISCONSIN INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $35k · revenue +77%
  • AM
    ANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMPUS OFFICE OF GRANT AND CONTRACTS
    one grant, 2019 · $35k
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

5 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. 5 of the 22 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
5/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $85,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF UTAHUniversity of North Carolina: $49,809 · OtherUniversity of North CarolinaChildrens Hospital of Pennsy: $35,000 · OtherChildrens Hospital of PennsyANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMPUS OFFICE OF GRANT AND CONTRACTS: $35,000 · OtherANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMPUS OFFICE OF GRANT AND CONTRACTSUniversity Health Network: $35,000 · OtherUniversity Health NetworkMassachusetts General Hospita: $35,000 · OtherMassachusetts General HospitaEast Carolina University: $35,000 · OtherEast Carolina UniversityOREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIV: $35,000 · OtherOREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVWEILL MED COLLEGE CORNELL UN: $35,000 · OtherWEILL MED COLLEGE CORNELL UNCHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE OF ATLANTA: $26,200 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $23,583 · OtherUniversity of Texas: $22,500 · Other+5 more: $67,500 · Other+5 moreBaylor College of Medicine: $67,500 · EducationBaylor College of M…President and Fellows of Harvard College: $35,000 · EducationPresident and Fello…DUKE UNIVERSITY: $15,000 · EducationDUKE UNIVERSITYVERSITI WISCONSIN INC: $35,000 · HealthVanderbilt University Medical Center: $15,000 · Health
Other$519,592Education$117,500Health$50,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBaylor College of Medicine: $67,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPresident and Fellows of Harvard College: $35,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVanderbilt University Medical Center: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $15,000 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 Baylor College of Medicine ↗
  • Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
  • Who funds VERSITI WISCONSIN INC ↗
  • Who funds Vanderbilt University Medical Center ↗
  • Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • President and Fellows of Harvard College: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
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 Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders?

Find your warmest path to Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders 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 22 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders’ 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