Skip to content
Gbscidp Foundation International Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Gbscidp Foundation International Inc

To improve the quality of life for individuals and families worldwide affected by gbs, cidp and variants by 1) providing a network for all patients, their caregivers and families 2) providing public and professional education programs worldwide designed to heighten awareness and improve the understanding and treatment of gbs, cidp and…

$758k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through 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 2024.

Science & Tech$410kPhilanthropy$200kHealth$193kEducation$33k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $50,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $757,575 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $707,575 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.
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$17M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER$50,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 65% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES: $200k → 14%RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK: $60k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $200k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER: $50k → 16%HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON - UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $143k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $33k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $60k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $60k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $30k → 11%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: $711k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$661k · 93% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

South Asia$50k · 7% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

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 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 8 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
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES: $200,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELESHEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON - UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $143,298 · OtherHEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON - UNIVERSITY OF TEXASF&J SPENCE BELL TUA FBO DUKE UNV: $90,000 · OtherF&J SPENCE BELL TUA FBO DUKE UNVTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON: $50,000 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTONUNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN DALLAS INC: $200,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN …University of Chicago: $60,000 · EducationUniversity of Chicag…The Research Foundation for The State University of New York: $60,000 · EducationThe Research Foundat…ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $33,341 · EducationALUMNI ASSOCIATION O…
Other$483,298Philanthropy$200,000Education$153,341

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN DALLAS INC: $200,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $60,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Research Foundation for The State University of New York: $60,000 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Gbscidp Foundation International Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gbscidp Foundation International Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s 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 · 0–50%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Gbscidp Foundation International Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Gbscidp Foundation International Inc 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 8 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Gbscidp Foundation 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