· Private foundation
Global GLOW
Its FY2024 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 FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k15 grants · $44k
- $10k–50k32 grants · $694k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $787k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Child Welfare Society | $136,198 |
| Newi | $129,787 |
| Ceinode | $88,145 |
| Hafai | $81,095 |
| Ready for Reading | $73,444 |
| Individual grant recipient | $62,079 |
| Individual grant recipient | $58,894 |
| Fead- Ghana Formerly the League | $54,502 |
| World Economy Skills Agro Dev | $51,840 |
| Nice | $50,957 |
| Art of a Child | $38,750 |
| Shohratgarh Environmental Society | $38,110 |
| Rift Valley Reading Association | $36,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $33,867 |
| Superkids Foundation | $32,151 |
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.
Your US giving — 21% of grant dollars ($2.2M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 79% that went abroad ($8.0M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY19–24, $143k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 65% of those 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.
Which US states your grants reach
Beyond the US — 79% of all-years giving ($8.0M)
30 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +29% since the first grant, against +15% for the ones you funded once.
84 repeat relationships — 44 still active in FY2024, 40 since wound down; 13 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $167k 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
- STSPRINGBOARD TO OPPORTUNITIES4× · 2019–2022 · $59k · revenue +195%
- FOFRIENDS OF THAI DAUGHTERS INC6× · 2019–2024 · $49k · revenue +30%
- SOSEEDS OF HOPE INC4× · 2019–2022 · $30k · revenue +374%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $126k
- FGFEAD - GHANA (FRMLY THE LEAGUE)one grant, 2023 · $105k
- LILITWORLD INTERNATIONAL INCone grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue -64%
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.
Educate Girls promotes and protects the right of girls to a quality education and works by supporting partners in geographies where the need is greatest to mobilize communities, enroll girls into school and improve learning outcomes. Our…
Access to opportunities for marginalized people in S Asia
To strengthen young women's civic participation and leadership
Unatti foundation is a non profit organization the provides comprehensive programs for girls in nepal who live in vulnerable situations. through academic health and life skills education nepali girls become englished enpowered leaders who…
GEC partners with locally-led organizations to catalyze and support sustainable, community-driven solutions that remove social, economic, and gender-based barriers keeping girls out of school in under-resourced regions of the global south.
Sch O
Educating kids in ghana
Education for underserved women and girls in remote regions of developing countries
Dosti sets up and manages schools in asian countries
Education of underprivileged children in India
Kidogo's objective is to improve access to highquality, affordable Early Childhood Care & Education in East Africa's low-income communities and ensure young children are getting the best start to life during their most formative years…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Think Together and the most unlike its peers is Girls Mentors Girls Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 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. 18 of the 136 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.
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: Orange County Community Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Network for Good · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 GLOW 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 Global GLOW?
Find your warmest path to Global GLOW 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.