Skip to content

· Public charity

Global Good Fund

Accelerate the development of high potential young leaders to achieve out-sized social impact.

$220k
Granted FY2019
13
Grants FY2019
9
States reached
$9k
Largest
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2019.

Community Improvement$72kHealth$42kArts & Culture$40kFood & Nutrition$40kYouth Development$30kHousing & Shelter$25kEmployment$20kHuman Services$20kOther$0
02FY2019 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $73,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $220,395 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $147,395 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.
$5,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ABBEY GOEL & ASSOCIATES$9,000
VIRTUDENT$9,000
BIOLOGIC COMMUNITY HEALTH$5,000
THE EMPOWERMENT PLAN$5,000
PRISERE LLC$5,000
LAVA MAE$5,000
THE BEST BEES COMPANY$5,000
CONSULT YOUR COMMUNITY INC$5,000
MOLLY MATTHEWS$5,000
SAMARITAN MINISTRY OF GREATER WASHINGTON$5,000
COZYMEAL INC$5,000
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF EAST TEXAS INC$5,000
AFTER SCHOOL ALL STARS$5,000
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 (FY18–19, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE EMPOWERMENT PLAN: $15k → 21%RISING FOUNDATIONS: $10k → 23%THE EMPOWERMENT PLAN: $5k → 21%SAMARITAN MINISTRY OF GREATER WASHINGTON: $15k → 14%SAMARITAN MINISTRY OF GREATER WASHINGTON: $5k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

MI
NY
MA
RI
CA
UT
CO
VA
MD
DC
LA
GA
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $89k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 6 regions, all to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$52k · 59% · 8 people

Stated purpose: Fellowship Funds

South Asia$27k · 31% · 4 people

Stated purpose: Fellowship Funds

East Asia and the Pacific$5k · 6% · 1 person

Stated purpose: Fellowship Funds

South America$3k · 3% · 1 person

Stated purpose: Fellowship Funds

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$1k · 1% · 1 person

Stated purpose: Fellowship Funds

Middle East and North Africa$1k · 1% · 1 person

Stated purpose: Fellowship Funds

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.

44%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$160k · 8 repeat orgs$207k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
16

Total granted

$160k
$174k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+66%
+103%

Still filing today

75%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $33k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementHealthEmploymentEducationPublic BenefitOther
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

  • TC
    Thrive Community Health dba BioLogic
    2× · 2018–2019 · $20k · revenue +131% · 65% of their budget
  • AA
    AFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARS
    2× · 2018–2019 · $20k · revenue +55%
  • CY
    CONSULT YOUR COMMUNITY INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $20k · revenue +66%

Funded once

  • RH
    RECIPROCAL HEALTH INC
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
  • C
    COZYMEALINC
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
  • VS
    VERA SOLUTIONS
    one grant, 2018 · $13k
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
Entrepreneurial Institute of Washington

To improve the skill set of our local workforce and develop a resilient base of job creating entrepreneurs in Washington State by providing small businesses advisory, professional and technical assistance designed to streamline…

Employment
2
The Edge Connection Inc

Promote economic self-sufficiency through comprehensive entrepreneurial training targeting low to moderate income individuals women minorities and veterans.

Community Improvement
3
Flywheel Social Enterprise Hub

Through workshops, training programs and technical assistance, we help social entrepreneurs build ventures that deliver social impact.

Philanthropy
4
The Training Source Inc

Provide education, training & services that promote positive economic mobility. Our programs & services in the Maryland and Washington, DC area assist low-to-moderate income youth & adults & include workforce training, college & career…

—
5
The WorkWell Partnership

The WorkWell Partnership operates a four-week job training program consisting of training and counseling, with qualified trainers, mentors, and advocates helping to prepare formerly incarcerated citizens for employment that can be…

Education
6
Green Careers Texas

Green Careers Texass mission is to disrupt poverty through green career training and employment, in combination with community education.By providing solar PV installation and safety training in the part of Dallas suffering the highest…

Environment
7
Capacity Catalyst

We're on a mission to improve data use in the social sector by connecting capacity with need for a thriving equitable social data ecosystem.

Education
8
Collaboration for Good

Collaboration for Good is a capacity-building organization that focuses on accelerating economic equity. We believe the road to building a just and equal society lies in normalizing and stabilizing economic equity. Decent work, economic…

—
9
Women Enabled Enterprises

Women Enabled Enterprises strives to help low income women of color artisans in African countries grow their craft business for self-sufficiency through a virtual, mobile-phone based, retail entrepreneurship skills building program, access…

Human Services
10
Activate Work Inc

We provide training, coaching, community supports and access to leading colorado employers enabling coloradans to acheive economic security, mobility and prosperity.

Human Services
11
Transition Skills Training Inc

Training and Supports for Veterans, First Responders and their Families, we specialize in entrepreneurial training but that is not the only kind of support we provide.

Education
12
Global Startup Foundation Inc

GSF mission is to conduct practical education training programs that prepare individuals and institutions for the digital age. Our programs include workforce training initiatives with institutional partners, career & leadership tech…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Veterans Enterprise Training & Services Group Inc; the most unlike its peers is Lava Mae. 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

11 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. 11 of the 29 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
9/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RECIPROCAL HEALTH INC: $20,000 · OtherRECIPROCAL HEALTH INCAFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARS: $20,000 · OtherAFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARSDONNA'S NEW COMPANY: $20,000 · OtherDONNA'S NEW COMPANYTHE BEST BEES COMPANY: $20,000 · OtherTHE BEST BEES COMPANYCOZYMEALINC: $15,000 · OtherCOZYMEALINCVERA SOLUTIONS: $12,500 · OtherVERA SOLUTIONSVETERANS STAND UNITED: $10,395 · OtherSTREET ENTREPRENERUS: $10,000 · OtherGAYATRI'S NEW COMPANY: $10,000 · OtherGOOD WORKS STUDIO: $10,000 · OtherPINKTHINK: $10,000 · OtherJETSEALINC: $9,277 · OtherDAN CAPORALE: $9,216 · OtherTAC INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS: $9,209 · OtherFEBA SECURITY SERVICES: $9,205 · OtherVIRTUDENT: $9,000 · OtherABBEY GOEL & ASSOCIATES: $9,000 · Other+3 more: $15,000 · Other+3 moreTHE EMPOWERMENT PLAN: $20,000 · Human ServicesTHE EMPOWERMENT…Samaritan Ministry of Greater Washington: $20,000 · Human ServicesSamaritan Minis…The First 72: $10,000 · Human ServicesThe First 72CONSULT YOUR COMMUNITY INC: $20,000 · Community ImprovementVETERANS ENTERPRISE TRAINING & SERVICES GROUP INC: $9,000 · Community ImprovementThrive Community Health dba BioLogic: $20,000 · HealthGOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF EAST TEXAS INC: $20,000 · EmploymentThe Scholarship Academy Inc: $10,000 · EducationGlobal Good Fund: $10,000 · Public Benefit
Other$227,802Human Services$50,000Community Improvement$29,000Health$20,000Employment$20,000Education$10,000Public Benefit$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetThrive Community Health dba BioLogic: $20,000 over 2y, 65% of budgetAFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARS: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCONSULT YOUR COMMUNITY INC: $20,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetGOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF EAST TEXAS INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE EMPOWERMENT PLAN: $20,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSamaritan Ministry of Greater Washington: $20,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetGlobal Good Fund: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetVETERANS ENTERPRISE TRAINING & SERVICES GROUP INC: $9,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetLava Mae: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

  • Who funds Thrive Community Health dba BioLogic ↗
  • Who funds AFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARS ↗
  • Who funds CONSULT YOUR COMMUNITY INC ↗
  • Who funds GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF EAST TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE EMPOWERMENT PLAN ↗
  • Who funds Samaritan Ministry of Greater Washington ↗
  • Who funds The First 72 ↗
  • Who funds The Scholarship Academy Inc ↗
  • Who funds Global Good Fund ↗
  • Who funds VETERANS ENTERPRISE TRAINING & SERVICES GROUP INC ↗
  • Who funds Lava Mae ↗

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.

American Online Giving Foundation IncDE3.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation 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 Good Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Global Good Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%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
    3report 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 29 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $137k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2019, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Global Good’s filings →

    More from the funding graph