Skip to content
Hope Worldwide Ltd at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Hope Worldwide Ltd

Motivated by god's love, we partner with our neighbors in need, equip volunteers, respond to disasters and strenghten communities to inspire greater hope in our world.

$6.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Public Safety & Disaster$100kReligion$17kCommunity Improvement$15kCivil Rights$11k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $15,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $6,568,210 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $6,553,210 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.
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
POSITIVE IMPACT INTERNATIONAL$15,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 41% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%The Mexico and Central American Missions Society: $11k → 10%Maui Christian Church: $58k → 9%Greater Houston Church: $10k → 16%The Fort Myers Church: $11k → 11%Florida Missions Council: $6k → 13%HOPE for Freedom Inc: $11k → 14%POSITIVE IMPACT INTERNATIONAL: $15k → 9%The New Orleans Church: $21k → 15%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $1.1M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 8 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

South Asia$348k · 31% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: Child Education training in computer and mobile repairing courses including monitoring expense · Orphanage Operational expenses HOPE Foundation India site · Educational and Support services for under privileged children at the Asha Vidhyashram school

East Asia and the Pacific$310k · 28% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: Surgical Medical Services for underprivileged patients at Sonja Kill Memorial Hospital · Family development services, Child protection treatment & recovery, Disaster risk reduction mgmt · Education for Under Resourced children

Sub-Saharan Africa$220k · 20% · 7 grants

Stated purpose: Early Childhood Development Jan-June 2025 · Early Child Development Program · Kids Support

North America (Canada and Mexico)$68k · 6% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Dental Clinic Operations, Library & Nutritional Programs, Dental Brigade

Central America and the Caribbean$59k · 5% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: Social Service Healthcare & Medical Services Childhood Development & Education · Community Services Program manager for medical brigades, Lend HOPE, oversee medical clinic in Chamelecon · Microlending

South America$51k · 5% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: B-Olivia mobile Library, English as a 2nd language, Early childhood development, volunteer programs · Worthy bathroom program construction materials

Russia and Neighboring States$40k · 4% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: Psychosocial aid services for Children of War supervise therapists develop mental health self help tools · Monthly event for foster children and their families to come together for games & encouragement

Middle East and North Africa$25k · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Disaster Relief post war and community development

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 field
04the grantee network

1 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2019–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2019 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 1 of the 8 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
1/1
Grantees still filing
0/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MAUI CHRISTIAN CHURCH: $58,000 · OtherMAUI CHRISTIAN CHURCHTHE NEW ORLEANS CHURCH: $21,000 · OtherTHE NEW ORLEANS CHURCHFT MYERS-NAPLES CHURCH INC: $11,000 · OtherFT MYERS-NAPLES CHURCH INCHOPE for Freedom Inc: $10,663 · OtherHOPE for Freedom IncMEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA MISSIONS: $10,500 · OtherMEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA MISSIONSGREATER HOUSTON CHURCH OF CHRIST INC: $10,000 · OtherGREATER HOUSTON CHURCH OF CHRIST INCFLORIDA MISSIONS COUNCIL INC: $6,000 · OtherPOSITIVE IMPACT INTERNATIONAL INC: $15,000 · Community ImprovementPOSITIVE IM…
Other$127,163Community Improvement$15,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPOSITIVE IMPACT INTERNATIONAL INC: $15,000 over 1y, 3.6% 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 POSITIVE IMPACT INTERNATIONAL INC ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Hope Worldwide Ltd funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hope Worldwide Ltd. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    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, FY22–25
    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 8 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Hope Worldwide Ltd’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home