Loading…
· Public charity
GLOBAL LINKS
GLOBAL LINKS is a non-profit dedicated to improving health in communities with need.
$3.9M
Granted FY2024
1
Grants
1
Communities
$90k
Largest
01What you fund
01beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2018
office furnishingsfurnishings equipmentequipment nonprofits
2019
office furnishingsfurnishings equipmentequipment nonprofits
2020
office furnishingsfurnishings equipmentequipment nonprofits
2021
office furnishingsfurnishings equipmentequipment nonprofits
2022
—
2023
—
2024
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
02FY2024 · 1 grant
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$90,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
- EMERGENCY USA$90,000
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 (FY24–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 17% — the area typically sits at 11%. 100% 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
Human Services Inc
Outpatient mental health, mental health residential, and homeless services.
Human Services
2
Hospice of Central Pennsylvania
The mission of hospice of central pennsylvania is to provide the highest quality of emotional, physical, and spiritual support with compassion and respect.
Human Services
3
Northeastern Pennsylvania Health Care
Education
4
Pittsburgh Community Services Inc
Provide programs to help individuals and/or families achieve self-sufficiency
Human Services
5
The Baptist Home of Philadelphia
Dedicated to providing quality continuing care living facilities and support services in a christian environment respecting the dignity and sanctity of all individuals.
Human Services
6
Dubois Regional Medical Center
Drmc offers residents a combination of advanced healthcare in a friendly environment. drmc focuses on clinical excellence with a focus on patient-centered care.
Health
7
Pennsylvania Health Care Association
Healthcare service programs
—
8
Partnership for Community Supports
Providing supports coordination for individuals with intellectual disabilities and service coordination for infants and toddlers who have a developmental delay or are at risk of a delay.
Health
9
Action Wellness
Provide broad range of services to people in philadelphia infected and affected by the hiv disease and other chronic illnesses.
Health
10
Pennsylvania Family Council
Foster social welfare by educating citizens.
—
11
Keystone Care
Providing administrative services to its two subsidiaries, keystone hospice and keystone home health, llc. providing social services to medically fragile populations in southeastern pennsylvania.
Health
12
Pathways to Housing - Pa
We provide homes, restore health & reclaim lives for chronically homeless people with disabilities.
Housing & Shelter
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Resources for Human Development Inc and the most unlike its peers is East End Cooperative Ministry. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 32 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 16% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
Closures · last 5 years
The orgs you fund almost never close — 5% lost their exemption, against 6% of the field you don’t fund.
orgs you fund
5%
4/86
the rest of the field
6%
752/12,063
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
04the grantee network
75 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
16
Early backer (in before they grew)
70/75
Grantees still filing
56/75
Grew since you first funded
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.
The Pittsburgh FoundationPA80.7× affinity52 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: The Pittsburgh Foundation · The United Way of Southwestern · Hillman Family Foundations · Richard King Mellon Foundation · The Heinz Endowments · Staunton Farm Foundation · The Grable Foundation · Poise Foundation · Jefferson Regional Foundation · McCune Foundation Pnc Bank Na · Snee-Reinhardt Charitable Foundation · Edward B Dunlap Jr Foundation
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 LINKS 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
0get 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: EMERGENCY USA.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~3 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 8 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +56% since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 263321828 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 EMERGENCY USA, 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
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 3 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 7% of their budget — diversified.
- 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 Links?
Find your warmest path to Global Links 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