· Public charity
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation Inc
3ie is dedicated to transforming people's lives by providing various evaluation and synthesis evidence services.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $225,860 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,681,142 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,455,282 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 · FY2024
- $10k–50k3 grants · $114k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $112k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE | $111,936 |
| IMAGO GLOBAL GRASSROOTS | $46,648 |
| INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION | $46,198 |
| ATHENA INFONOMICS LLC | $21,078 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 82% of your 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 — $1.5M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: IMPACT EVALUATION
Stated purpose: IMPACT EVALUATION
Stated purpose: IMPACT EVALUATION
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.
28 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 24 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- IFINNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION7× · 2017–2024 · $4.5M · revenue +24%
- IGIMAGO GLOBAL GRASSROOTS6× · 2019–2024 · $692k · revenue +154%
- EUEmory University5× · 2017–2021 · $490k · revenue +80%
Funded once
- JCJHPIEGO CORPORATIONone grant, 2017 · $139k · revenue -30%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUTone grant, 2017 · $132k
- LALEAD ANALYTICS INCone grant, 2017 · $63k
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.
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
Nyu is a private university with approximately 60,000 matriculating students in 20 schools and institutes. nyu's primary missions are education, research and scholarship, and patient care.
Research Triangle Institute is one of the world's leading research institutes, dedicated to improving the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. Our staff of more than 5,300 provides research and technical (continued on…
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…
As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…
Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…
To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
To discover, develop and deliver safe, effective and affordable vaccines for global public health. its vision is developing countries free of suffering from infectious disease.
The principal objects of the University are the advancement of learning by teaching and research, and its dissemination by every means. We work as one Oxford bringing together our staff, students and alumni, our colleges, faculties,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Family Health International Inc and the most unlike its peers is Khushi Baby Inc. 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 52 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% 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.
24 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. 24 of the 38 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 INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds IMAGO GLOBAL GRASSROOTS ↗
- Who funds SOCIETY FOR IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE IN NUTRITION INC ↗
- Who funds Emory University ↗
- Who funds PATH ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR DISEASE DYNAMICS ECONOMICS & POLICY INC ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Wildlife Conservation Society ↗
- Who funds Cornell University ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Mercy Corps ↗
- Who funds Khushi Baby Inc ↗
- Who funds Family Health International Inc ↗
- Who funds THE POPULATION COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds Research Foundation of the City University of New York ↗
- Who funds JHPIEGO CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds ID INSIGHT INC ↗
- Who funds Yale University ↗
- Who funds KICKSTART INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
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: Gates Foundation · Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere Inc · Georgetown University · Johns Hopkins University · The George Washington University · Cornell University · Yale University · The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Save The Children Federation Inc · Population Services International · Family Health International Inc
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 Initiative for Impact Evaluation 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Jhpiego Corporation — 65% of income from government
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- Center for Disease Dynamics Economics & Policy Inc — 16% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Yale University — 12% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
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 Initiative for Impact Evaluation Inc?
Find your warmest path to International Initiative for Impact Evaluation 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.