Skip to content
Global Fund for Children at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Global Fund for Children

GLOBAL FUND FOR CHILDREN partners with grassroots organizations around the world to help children and youth reach their full potential and advance their rights.

$5.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$35k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Crime & Legal$523kInternational$238kEducation$87kEnvironment$85kYouth Development$54kHuman Services$38kPhilanthropy$22kCivil Rights$16k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $35,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $5,062,073 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $5,027,073 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.
$35,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$20M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOMIES UNIDOS$35,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY18–22, $97k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%AL OTRO LADO: $27k → 14%AL OTRO LADO: $22k → 14%AL OTRO LADO: $21k → 14%AL OTRO LADO: $15k → 14%AL OTRO LADO: $12k → 14%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: $4.5M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions, $4.3M to organizations and $144k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Russia and Neighboring States$987k · 22% · 44 grants

Stated purpose: PRIMARY GRANT · EMERGENCY GRANT · OPPORTUNITY GRANT

South Asia$879k · 20% · 42 grants

Stated purpose: PRIMARY GRANT · SPECIAL INITIATIVE AWARD · ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT

Sub-Saharan Africa$707k · 16% · 51 grants

Stated purpose: PRIMARY GRANT · ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT · EMERGENCY GRANT

Central America and the Caribbean$637k · 14% · 48 grants

Stated purpose: PRIMARY GRANT · SPECIAL INITIATIVE AWARD · CONVENING GRANT

East Asia and the Pacific$496k · 11% · 21 grants · 9 people

Stated purpose: PRIMARY GRANT · EMERGENCY GRANT · CONVENING GRANT

North America (Canada and Mexico)$336k · 8% · 24 grants

Stated purpose: EMERGENCY GRANT · PRIMARY GRANT · OPPORTUNITY GRANT

South America$253k · 6% · 17 grants

Stated purpose: PRIMARY GRANT · SPECIAL INITIATIVE AWARD

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$135k · 3% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: PRIMARY GRANT · SUSTAINABILITY AWARD · COURAGE AWARD

Middle East and North Africa$41k · 1% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: EMERGENCY 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. 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$955k · 12 repeat orgs$107k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +114% since the first grant, against +54% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
6

Total granted

$955k
$107k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+114%
+54%

Still filing today

92%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalEducationCivil RightsPhilanthropyCrime & LegalHuman ServicesOther
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

  • HU
    HOMIES UNIDOS INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $227k · revenue +53%
  • TT
    THE TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER
    5× · 2018–2022 · $123k · revenue +54%
  • AO
    AL OTRO LADO
    5× · 2018–2022 · $97k · revenue +218%

Funded once

  • CH
    CREATING HOPE INTERNATIONALgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $27k · revenue +42%
  • CE
    CONNECTEDCONECTANDO EDUCACIONgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $22k · revenue +43%
  • OF
    ORGANIZATION FOR YOUTH EMPOWERMENTgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $19k · revenue +54%
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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
The Advocates for Human Rights

To promote and protect human rights in the United States and around the world.

International
2
GoodWeave International

GoodWeave works to stop child and forced labor in global supply chains. Permanently.

International
3
Women's Refugee Commission Inc

To improve the lives and protect the rights of women, children and youth displaced by conflict and crisis. the women's refugee commission envisions a world in which refugees are safe, healthy and reliant and seeks to drive change in…

Human Services
4
Women's Link Worldwide

A legal organization working to advance the rights of women, girls, and gender diverse people. We work on issues of reproductive rights, gender-based violence, climate, and racial justice in East Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the…

Civil Rights
5
Ceda International

To strengthen young women's civic participation and leadership

—
6
The Global Hunger Project

The hunger project is working to create a world without hunger through women-centered, holistic development strategies that address the root causes of hunger and poverty. in 2025, it reached nearly 12.7 million people in over 10,000…

International
7
Equal Justice Center

The Equal Justice Center is a non-profit law firm and employment justice organization which empowers low-income families, workers, and communities to achieve fair treatment in the workplace, in the justice system, and in our shared society…

Civil Rights
8
Redes Ayudas Inc
International
9
Maia

MAIA is creating a generation of empowered leaders who have the knowledge and resources they need to lead choice-filled lives, break cycles of poverty, and ignite transformational change in their communities.

International
10
Washington Office On Latin America

To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.

International
11
The International Institute On Race Equality and Human Rights

The international institute on race, equality and human rights contributes to the promotion and defense of human rights, through training, technical assistance, advocacy, and strategic litigation conducted at the regional and international…

International
12
Equality Now Inc

To achieve legal and systematic change that addresses violence and discrimination against women and girls around the world.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Homies Unidos Inc; the most unlike its peers is Creating Hope International. 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

17 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. 17 of the 18 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
15/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HOMIES UNIDOS INC: $226,876 · Crime & LegalHOMIES UNIDOS INCGEORGES MALAIKA FOUNDATION INC: $90,000 · InternationalGEORGES MALAIKA FOUND…RefuSHE Inc: $50,000 · InternationalRefuSHE IncCHURCH WORLD SERVICE INC: $36,707 · InternationalCHURCH WORLD SERVICE …CREATING HOPE INTERNATIONAL: $27,000 · InternationalCREATING HOPE INTERNA…NICARAGUAN EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER: $86,523 · EducationNICARAGUAN EDUCATIO…Womens Justice Initiative Inc: $75,029 · EducationWomens Justice Init…ORGANIZATION FOR YOUTH EMPOWERMENT: $18,986 · EducationORGANIZATION FOR YO…THE TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER: $123,463 · Civil RightsTHE TAHIRIH JU…NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK: $16,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL DAY L…AL OTRO LADO: $97,470 · Human ServicesAL OTRO LA…SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $85,102 · EnvironmentSOCIAL AN…COURTNEYS HOUSE INC: $38,000 · OtherCOURTNEYS HOU…Fihankra Akoma Ntoaso: $26,000 · OtherFihankra Akom…CONNECTEDCONECTANDO EDUCACION: $22,194 · OtherCONNECTEDCONE…CANDID: $14,000 · OtherCANDIDCREATIVE LIFE FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 · OtherCREATIVE LIFE…PROJECT CREATE: $9,000 · OtherPROJECT CREAT…
Crime & Legal$226,876International$203,707Education$180,538Civil Rights$139,463Human Services$97,470Environment$85,102Other$129,194

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHOMIES UNIDOS INC: $226,876 over 8y, 4.4% of budgetTHE TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER: $123,463 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetAL OTRO LADO: $97,470 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetGEORGES MALAIKA FOUNDATION INC: $90,000 over 3y, 7.2% of budgetNICARAGUAN EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER: $86,523 over 3y, 4.9% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $85,102 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetWomens Justice Initiative Inc: $75,029 over 4y, 2.7% of budgetRefuSHE Inc: $50,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetCHURCH WORLD SERVICE INC: $36,707 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCREATING HOPE INTERNATIONAL: $27,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetFihankra Akoma Ntoaso: $26,000 over 3y, 4.5% of budgetCONNECTEDCONECTANDO EDUCACION: $22,194 over 1y, 9.3% of budgetCREATIVE LIFE FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetORGANIZATION FOR YOUTH EMPOWERMENT: $18,986 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetNATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK: $16,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPROJECT CREATE: $9,000 over 1y, 1.4% 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.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Globalgiving Foundati…Together Women RiseGreater Washington Co…Tides FoundationNational Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Globalgiving Foundation IncDC17.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Globalgiving Foundation Inc · Together Women Rise · Greater Washington Community Foundation · Tides Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Global Fund for Children funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Global Fund for Children. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.

    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 18 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 Global Fund for Children’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