Loading…
· Public charity
Global Impact Social Welfare Fund
Global Impact Social Welfare Fund, Inc.
$6.5M
Granted FY2023
14
Grants
11
Communities
$2.0M
Largest
01What you fund
01FY2023 · 14 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- $50k–250k6 grants · $645k
- $250k+8 grants · $5.7M
$500,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
- Western Futures Fund Inc$2,000,000
- Alliance for Gun Responsibility Foundation$700,000
- Goodnation Philanthropy Advisors Inc$650,000
- The PAC for America's Future$600,000
- Our American Future Action$500,000
- Tides Advocacy$500,000
- Local Jobs & Economic Development Fund$500,000
- Protect our Families Inc$250,000
- Road to Michigan's Future$200,000
- Protect Minnesota Advocacy Fund$150,000
- Open Democracy PAC$100,000
- ReAction$75,000
- PAC for Justice$70,000
- Kansas Values Institute$50,000
02The need
02
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 (FY23–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 9%. 94% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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 line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your 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
Protect Minnesota
Protect Minnesota promotes a culture of health and safety for all Minnesotans by preventing gun violence through research education advocacy and community investment. We emphasize prevention using a public health model and we seek to build…
Education
2
Partnership for Policy Integrity
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses science, communications, and strategic advocacy to protect forests and our climate future.
Environment
3
Secure Democracy Usa
Nonpartisan organization that works to build stronger elections, state by state.
Civil Rights
4
Americans for Public Trust
The Organizations mission is to restore trust in government by holding officials and groups accountable for corrupt and unethical behavior through investigation legal action and reporting
Arts & Culture
5
Wisconsin Policy Forum Inc
We conduct impartial public policy research and analysis to drive informed debate and effective decision-making in the state of wisconsin.
Public Benefit
6
Fairvote Minnesota Foundation
Provide education, outreach, research and advocacy to build knowledge and awareness about voting methods in public elections and how they may be improved.
Public Benefit
7
Global Action On Gun Violence Inc
Global Action on Gun Violence is the only organization working with countries and people around the world to reduce the global harm from guns by using litigation and human rights strategies to reform dangerous gun industry practices.
Civil Rights
8
Protecting Ohio Inc
Protecting ohio seeks to educate the public about common sense solutions to various public policy issues in the state of ohio, including but not limited to law enforcement and the promotion of law and order.
—
9
Michigan League of Conservation
A non-partisan political organization that works to elect and hold accountable public officials who will champion a healthy and vital michigan by preserving and protecting our air, land and water.
Environment
10
Center for Political Accountability
Public Benefit
11
Midwestern Governors Association
To bring together governors and their staff to work cooperatively on public policy issues of significance to the region. mga provides membership opportunities to organizations to support activities and events.
Public Benefit
12
State Policy Network
Catalyze thriving, durable freedom movements in every state, anchored with high-performing independent think tanks.
Civil Rights
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Western Futures Fund Inc and the most unlike its peers is Citizens for a Safer Minnesota. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network
8 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
8/8
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$3,595,000Philanthropy$2,000,000Public Safety & Disaster$700,000Community Improvement$50,000
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.
- Who funds Western Futures Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds Alliance for Gun Responsibility Foundation ↗
- Who funds Tides Advocacy ↗
- Who funds Local Jobs & Economic Development Fund ↗
- Who funds Protect our Families Inc ↗
- Who funds Road to Michigan's Future ↗
- Who funds Protect Minnesota Advocacy Fund ↗
- Who funds Kansas Values Institute ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Sixteen Thirty FundDC19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty 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 organisation Global Impact Social Welfare Fund 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
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
04Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: Protect Minnesota Advocacy Fund.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~23 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 2 filed years.
Track record & reputation
medium risk
2 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +79% since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 411685834 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on Protect Minnesota Advocacy Fund, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 23 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue grew over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 73% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Global Impact Social Welfare Fund?
Find your warmest path to Global Impact Social Welfare Fund through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines