Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

The mission of the GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR IMPROVED NUTRITION (gain) is to improve the consumption of healthier diets for all, especially the most vulnerable, by improving the availability, affordability, desirability, and sustainability of nutritious and safe foods, and reducing the consumption of unhealthy and unsafe foods.

$4.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$140k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20192025.

Food & Nutrition$12MEducation$1.6MEnvironment$169k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 3 grants below total $300,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,055,415 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $3,755,415 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.

$110,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$33M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TECHNOSERVE INC$140,000
ENGENDERHEALTH INC$110,000
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY$50,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $510k → 16%CORNELL UNIVERSITY: $321k → 16%MICRONUTRIENT FORUM: $68k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $603k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER: $156k → 10%INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISE: $918k → 12%BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC: $153k → 11%TECHNOSERVE INC: $140k → 7%INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $119k → 9%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $291k → 19%REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $110k → 16%CORNELL UNIVERSITY: $60k → 16%ENGENDERHEALTH INC: $110k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $270k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER: $36k → 10%INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISE: $149k → 12%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $246k → 19%REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $30k → 16%CORNELL UNIVERSITY: $40k → 16%ENGENDERHEALTH INC: $30k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $169k → 16%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $156k → 19%CORNELL UNIVERSITY: $10k → 16%PIERCE MILL ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATION: $501k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $121k → 16%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $156k → 19%INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $3.3M → 14%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $119k → 19%PIERCE MILL ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATION: $394k → 14%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $50k → 19%INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $2.3M → 14%PIERCE MILL ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATION: $292k → 14%INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $976k → 14%PIERCE MILL ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATION: $169k → 14%INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $531k → 14%PIERCE MILL ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATION: $104k → 14%INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $332k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

MI
NY
NJ
CA
CO
VA
MD
DC

Grants abroad, by region — $3.6M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$2.2M · 61% · 61 grants

Stated purpose: FORTIFICATION · CROSS CUTTING PROJECTS · ENHANCING VALUE CHAINS FOR UNDER CONSUMED FOODS

South Asia$496k · 14% · 18 grants

Stated purpose: FORTIFICATION · WORKFORCE NUTRITION · ENABLING COHERENT FOOD SYSTEMS POLICIES

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$477k · 13% · 17 grants

Stated purpose: ENHANCING VALUE CHAINS FOR UNDER CONSUMED FOODS · CROSS CUTTING PROJECTS · THRIVING NUTRITION ENTERPRISE

East Asia and the Pacific$419k · 12% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: EMPOWERING FOOD SYSTEMS ACTORS · ENABLING COHERENT FOOD SYSTEMS POLICIES · CROSS CUTTING PROJECTS

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$14M · 9 repeat orgs$475k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +42% since the first grant, against -2% for the ones you funded once.

9 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
3

Total granted

$14M
$335k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
-2%

Still filing today

56%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 53% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $140k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalEducationFood & NutritionOther

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

  • ID
    INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES
    2× · 2020–2021 · $1.1M · revenue +79%
  • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
    6× · 2020–2025 · $1.0M · revenue +42%
  • Cornell University
    4× · 2019–2023 · $430k · revenue +50%

Funded once

  • BC
    BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC
    one grant, 2024 · $153k · revenue -9%
  • IL
    INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2021 · $119k · revenue -2%
  • MF
    Micronutrient Forumgraduated
    2× · 2019–2021 · $63k · revenue +482%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
International Aids Vaccine Initiative Inc

A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.

International
2
International Biomedical Research Alliance

Our mission is to invest in and accelerate the development of the most promising future leaders in biomedical research with global impact.

Health
3
International Life Sciences Institute

Ilsi is a global, nonprofit federation dedicated to generating and advancing emerging science and groundbreaking research to ensure foods are safe, nutritious and sustainable, and that they improve planetary and human health and well-being…

Science & Tech
4
International Crops Research Institute

To reduce poverty, hunger, malnutrition and environmental degradation in the dryland tropics

International
5
MRIGlobal

To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.

Science & Tech
6
International Budget Partnership

Ibp works with civil society, governments, international institutions and the private sector to bring about a world in which empowered citizens participate in open, inclusive public budgeting processes to shape policies and practices that…

International
7
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Appl Inc

Food, feed, fiber, and fuel for the world's 800 million people who suffer from hunger and poverty - this is the formidable task for many countries, development agencies, and other interest groups. of the many strategies that have been…

8
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…

International
9
Intrahealth International Inc

Our mission is to improve the performance of health workers and strengthen the systems in which they work.

Health
10
Indigenous Peoples Rights Inc

To lead and coordinate the global initiative to address and prevent criminalization, violence, and impunity against indigenous peoples towards strengthening their collectives, solidarity, and actions.

Human Services
11
International Food Information Council

To effectively communicate science based information on food safety, nutrition, and health for the public good.

Arts & Culture
12
Institute of Food Technologists

As an organization, the institute of food technologists is focusing its work in four main areas, or "roles and goals." each is wide-reaching and helps to advance our mission.steward for the profession and its community - provide learning,…

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is International Food Policy Research Institute and the most unlike its peers is Cornell University. 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

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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 13 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE — $7,412,851 · Food & NutritionINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEPIERCE MILL ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATION — $1,460,367 · OtherPIERCE MILL ENTERTAINMENT AN…MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY — $1,163,544 · OtherMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS — $650,043 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAV…AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION ACADEMY OF STUDENT PHARMACISTS — $192,693 · OtherAMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIA…INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES — $1,066,737 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL…BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC — $153,014 · InternationalBUSARA CENTER…ENGENDERHEALTH INC — $140,000 · InternationalENGENDERHEALT…TECHNOSERVE INC — $140,000 · InternationalTECHNOSERVE I…INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE — $118,966 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL…JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY — $1,017,848 · EducationJOHNS HOPKIN…Cornell University — $430,269 · EducationCornell Univ…Micronutrient Forum — $62,875 · Education
Food & Nutrition$7,412,851Other$3,466,647International$1,618,717Education$1,510,992

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE — $7,412,851 over 5y, 3.2% of budgetINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES — $1,066,737 over 2y, 3.8% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY — $1,017,848 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCornell University — $430,269 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetBUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC — $153,014 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetENGENDERHEALTH INC — $140,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetINTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE — $118,966 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMicronutrient Forum — $62,875 over 2y, 10% of budget
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 INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES
  • Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
  • Who funds Cornell University
  • Who funds BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC
  • Who funds ENGENDERHEALTH INC
  • Who funds TECHNOSERVE INC
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  • Who funds Micronutrient Forum

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.

Gates FoundationWA13.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Gates Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University12% of 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 · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY2025

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition?

Find your warmest path to Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 13 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph