· Public charity
International Disaster Emergency Service Inc
International disaster emergency service, inc.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 11 grants below total $240,768 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $5,165,428 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $4,924,660 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k10 grants · $166k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $75k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SOUTH DADE CHRISTIAN CHURCH | $75,000 |
| CENTRAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF ST PETERSBURG INC | $39,768 |
| ZEPHYR CHRISTIAN CHURCH | $36,000 |
| RUSSELL CAVE CHURCH OF CHRIST | $20,000 |
| GATEWAY CHRISTIAN CHURCH | $10,000 |
| FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH ARCADIA | $10,000 |
| CHURCH OF CHRIST OF MARTINS FERRY | $10,000 |
| COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN CHURCH | $10,000 |
| WHITE MILLS CHRISTIAN CAMP | $10,000 |
| FAITH CHRISTIAN CHURCH | $10,000 |
| HARVESTER CHRISTIAN CHURCH | $10,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–22, $579k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 99% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
Grants abroad, by region — $3.3M 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.
Stated purpose: DEVELOPMENT, DISCIPLESHIP · DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP · DEVELOPMENT, DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP
Stated purpose: DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP · DEVELOPMENT, DISCIPLESHIP · DEVELOPMENT, DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP
Stated purpose: DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP · CHURCH PLANTING · DEVELOPMENT, DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP
Stated purpose: DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP · DEVELOPMENT, DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP
Stated purpose: DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP · DEVELOPMENT, DISCIPLESHIP · DISCIPLESHIP
Stated purpose: DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP
Stated purpose: DISASTER, DISCIPLESHIP
Stated purpose: DEVELOPMENT, DISCIPLESHIP
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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +3% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.
21 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2025, 21 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $241k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- DADISASTER ASSISTANCE COC INC2× · 2018–2019 · $50k · revenue +209%
- MCMID-SOUTH CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INC2× · 2020–2021 · $20k · revenue +3%
- MPMASTER PROVISIONS INC2× · 2020–2021 · $18k · revenue +63%
Funded once
- OUOTHER UNDER 5000one grant, 2017 · $447k
- CCCHRISTIAN CHURCH OF PANAMA CITYone grant, 2019 · $200k
- BABAY AREA CHRISTIAN CHURCHone grant, 2018 · $125k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Religious
Religious Purposes
Our mission is to carry out the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ to take the Good News of the gospel to the whole world teaching people to obey everything He commanded. We work among mostly low-literacy populations so we do this by…
Training pastors in third world countries
Education, Humanitarian, Community outreach and evangelism ministry. Provide Orphan Care, Train Youth in Career Paths, Train Pastors and Others in Bible School, Prison Ministry, Provide Elementary School for about 300 Children
Spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ
Teaching and ministering to pastors internationally and in the usa.
Church ministry
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sharing Hope Ministries Inc and the most unlike its peers is Africa Fire Mission. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 28 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 82 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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 SHARING HOPE MINISTRIES INC ↗
- Who funds PUERTO RICO MISSION INC ↗
- Who funds THE GATHERING PEOPLE INC ↗
- Who funds DISASTER ASSISTANCE COC INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN REHABILITATION MINISTRY INC ↗
- Who funds The Ark Christian Ministries ↗
- Who funds COOKSON HILLS CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds AFRICA FIRE MISSION ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · American Endowment Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 organization International Disaster Emergency Service Inc 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.
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 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to International Disaster Emergency Service Inc?
Find your warmest path to International Disaster Emergency Service Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.