Loading…
· Public charity
GLOBAL TO LOCAL HEALTH INITIATIVE
Global to local's mission is to advance health equity and improve health in the united states communities through application of best practices around the world.
$143k
Granted FY2024
2
Grants
1
Communities
$71k
Largest
01What you fund
0197% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Human Services$255kEducation$200kHealth$185kYouth Development$164kEmployment$24kEnvironment$14kOther$22k
02beneath 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
subaward undernetdelivery
2019
economic
2022
chw model
2023
chw model
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 2 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$70,869
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
- PARA LOS NINOS DE HIGHLINE$70,869
- COMMUNITY NETWORK COUNCIL$63,314
02The need
04
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:
Your human-services grants (FY17–19, $255k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9% — the area typically sits at 8%. 100% of those 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 edge
repeat funding
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.
89%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$773k · 6 repeat orgs$91k to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +131% since the first grant, against +69% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
6
5
Total granted
$773k
$91k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+131%
+69%
Still filing today
83%
80%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Human ServicesEmploymentEducationYouth DevelopmentHealthEnvironmentOther
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
- PLPARA LOS NINOS DE HIGHLINE3× · 2022–2024 · $188k · revenue +44%
- HHEALTHPOINT2× · 2018–2019 · $185k · revenue +131%
- CNCOMMUNITY NETWORK COUNCIL3× · 2022–2024 · $164k · revenue +524%
Funded once
- CICONGOLESE INTEGRATION NETWORKgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $41k · revenue +69%
- FFORTERRAone grant, 2018 · $14k · revenue -6%
- UGUPWARDLY GLOBALgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $14k · revenue +395%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your 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
International Community Health Services
Provide health services to improve the health of asian pacific islander and other communities.
Health
2
Community Health Center of
To provide our diverse community with access to high quality, affordable primary health care
Health
3
Puget Sound Sage
Puget sound sage charts a path to a living economy in the south salish sea and duwamish river valley regions by developing community power to influence, lead and govern.
Social Science
4
Seattle International Soccer Local
Seattle International Soccer Local Organizing Committee exists to use the incredible platform of soccer (including the 2026 FIFA World Cup) to enrich and enhance the lives of everyone who visits or lives in the state of Washington, and to…
Community Improvement
5
Greater Washington Partnership
We identify shared opportunities and core challenges and offer solutions to the region's most critical issues including skills and talent, regional mobility, infrastructure and inclusive economic growth.
Recreation & Sports
6
Asian Counseling and Referral Service
To promote social justice and the well being and empowerment of asian pacific american individuals, families, and communities - including immigrants, refugees, and native born - by developing, providing, and advocating for innovative…
Human Services
7
Seattle Indian Health Board
Seattle indian health board is a community health center that provides health and human services to its patients, while specializing in the care of native people. we are recognized as a leader in the promotion of health improvement for…
Health
8
African Bridge Network
Career development resources for skilled immigrants.
Community Improvement
9
Communities in Schools of
Provides knowledge, resources and tools needed to ensure impact on student outcomes.
Unclassified
10
Central Minnesota Jobs & Training
Strengthen central mn communities through leadership in workforce excellence
—
11
Mid-City Community Advocacy Network
Mid-city community advocacy network works to build a safe, productive, and healthy community for the residents of city heights and greater san diego through collaboration, advocacy, and organizing.
Community Improvement
12
North Olympic Healthcare Network
To provide patient-centered, quality-driven, whole-person healthcare services, accessible to everyone in our community.
Health
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Healthpoint and the most unlike its peers is Somali Health Board. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
12 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/12
Grantees still filing
8/12
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Human Services$255,424Education$199,541Health$185,000Youth Development$163,865Employment$24,000Other$22,000Environment$14,410
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 WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR FINANCIAL SECURITY DBA THE PROSPERITY AGENDA ↗
- Who funds PARA LOS NINOS DE HIGHLINE ↗
- Who funds HEALTHPOINT ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY NETWORK COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds CONGOLESE INTEGRATION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds SOMALI HEALTH BOARD ↗
- Who funds SOMALI YOUTH AND FAMILY CLUB ↗
- Who funds FORTERRA ↗
- Who funds UPWARDLY GLOBAL ↗
- Who funds PARTNER IN EMPLOYMENT ↗
- Who funds KONA KAI COFFEE ↗
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.
Seattle FoundationWA22.5× affinity9 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation · Sheng-Yen Lu Foundation · Ken Birdwell Foundation · United Way of King County · Renton Regional Community Fndn · School's Out Washington · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile 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 TO LOCAL HEALTH INITIATIVE 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
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.
05Through 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: WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR FINANCIAL SECURITY DBA THE PROSPERITY AGENDA.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~14 months of operating runway; revenue contracted over 6 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
6 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 800919097 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 WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR FINANCIAL SECURITY DBA THE PROSPERITY AGENDA, 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 14 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue contracted over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 17% 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 to Local Health Initiative?
Find your warmest path to Global to Local Health Initiative 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