Skip to content
Leap Global Missions at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Leap Global Missions

LEAP GLOBAL MISSIONS is dedicated to enhancing and enriching the lives of people around the world by providing specialized medical and surgical services, free of charge, where there is a lack of access to specialized medical care.

$225k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$35k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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, FY2018 to 2024.

Religion$709kInternational$32kEducation$10kPhilanthropy$6k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $43,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $225,427 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $182,427 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $35k
$35,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MISSION TO THE WORLD$35,000
CENTRAL INDIA CHRISTIAN MISSION$8,000
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 44% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%TUNNELS TO TOWER FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%RAKHAM INTERNATIONAL MISSIONS INC: $5k → 16%ORANGE WALK ROTARY CLUB: $6k → 12%MISSION TO THE WORLD: $80k → 9%CENTRAL INDIA CHRISTIAN MISSION: $8k → 16%MISSION TO THE WORLD: $70k → 9%CENTRAL INDIA CHRISTIAN MISSION: $50k → 16%MISSION TO THE WORLD: $60k → 9%CENTRAL INDIA CHRISTIAN MISSION: $50k → 16%MISSION TO THE WORLD: $50k → 9%CENTRAL INDIA CHRISTIAN MISSION: $128k → 16%MISSION TO THE WORLD: $35k → 9%MISSION TO THE WORLD: $33k → 9%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: $173k 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.

Sub-Saharan Africa$100k · 58% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SUPPORT

Central America and the Caribbean$48k · 28% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SUPPORT

Russia and Neighboring States$25k · 14% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SUPPORT

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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$736k · 4 repeat orgs$21k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +69% since the first grant, against +50% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
3

Total granted

$736k
$21k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+69%
+50%

Still filing today

50%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalPhilanthropyEducationOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • MT
    MISSION TO THE WORLD PCA INC
    6× · 2019–2024 · $328k
  • CI
    CENTRAL INDIA CHRISTIAN MISSION
    4× · 2018–2024 · $236k
  • CI
    CELEBRATION INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIE
    4× · 2020–2023 · $146k · revenue +69% · 77% of their budget

Funded once

  • STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +50%
  • RC
    Rotary Club of Orange Foundation Incgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $6k · revenue +72%
  • RI
    RAKHAM INTERNATIONAL MISSIONS INC
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue -71%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field
04the grantee network

5 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 5 of the 7 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MISSION TO THE WORLD PCA INC: $328,000 · OtherMISSION TO THE WORLD PCA INCCENTRAL INDIA CHRISTIAN MISSION: $235,500 · OtherCENTRAL INDIA CHRISTIAN MISSIONCELEBRATION INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIE: $145,621 · OtherCELEBRATION INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIEUS FDN FOR THE CHILDREN OF HAITI: $27,000 · InternationalRAKHAM INTERNATIONAL MISSIONS INC: $5,000 · InternationalSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationRotary Club of Orange Foundation Inc: $5,700 · Philanthropy
Other$709,121International$32,000Education$10,000Philanthropy$5,700

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCELEBRATION INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIE: $145,621 over 4y, 77% of budgetUS FDN FOR THE CHILDREN OF HAITI: $27,000 over 2y, 6.4% of budgetSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRotary Club of Orange Foundation Inc: $5,700 over 1y, 14% 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.

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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Natl Christian Charit…Amazonsmile Foundation
Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · 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 Leap Global Missions funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Leap Global Missions. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%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
    3get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    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 7 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Leap Global Missions’ 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