Skip to content
Optometry Giving Sight at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Optometry Giving Sight

OPTOMETRY GIVING SIGHT targets the prevention of blindness & impaired vision due to uncorrected refractive error through education, training, service delivery and advocacy.

$743k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$90k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

International$782kHealth$193kHuman Services$155kRecreation & Sports$130kEducation$40kYouth Development$20kCommunity Improvement$20kOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $320,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $742,588 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $422,588 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

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $160k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $160k
$40,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKLEY$90,000
WORLD COUNCIL OF OPTOMETRY$70,000
VOSH INTERNATIONAL$45,000
LIGHT FOR THE WORLD INTERNATIONAL$40,000
INDIANA UNIVERSITY$40,000
SPECIAL OLYMPICS$25,000
HEALING CALIFORNIA$10,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–24, $185k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKLEY: $90k → 10%GUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATION: $30k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKLEY: $65k → 10%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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
MA
IN
OH
PA
CA
UT
NE
MO
NC
DC
GA
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $390k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Region not stated$390k · 100% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: EYE EXAMS/GLASSES

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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$892k · 6 repeat orgs$454k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
12

Total granted

$892k
$364k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+7%
+62%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $90k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthInternationalHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • TD
    THE DISABILITY FUND INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $155k · revenue +7%
  • SO
    SPECIAL OLYMPICS INC
    3× · 2017–2024 · $130k · revenue +44%
  • R
    RESTORINGVISION
    2× · 2020–2023 · $40k · revenue ×11

Funded once

  • SI
    SIGHTSAVERS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $70k · revenue +196%
  • VF
    VISION FOR THE POORgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $55k · revenue +107% · 30% of their budget
  • SF
    SEVA FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +6%
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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
World Optometry Foundation
Health
2
Eyecare for Humanity
—
3
Sightsavers International Inc

Sightsavers international, inc. supports sightsavers international uk, in particular supporting projects which prevent blindness in developing countries.

Health
4
Sight Org

Sight.org exists to proclaim the gospel to the most unserved regions of Africa by combating blindness through surgery and prevention.

International
5
Vision for Africa
Religion
6
OneSight

OneSight is a leading global nonprofit 501(c)(3)organization dedicated to creating a world where lack of access to vision care is no longer a barrier to human achievement and potential. From one-day charitable clinics, serving those with…

Human Services
7
Global Vision 2020 Inc

Dedicated to delivering corrective eyeglasses to the needy and impoverished worldwide.

Philanthropy
8
Vision Outreach International Inc

Restore sight to the blind poor in remote regions of the world; connecting eye care professionals around the world.

Health
9
Optometry Giving Sight

Optometry giving sight targets the prevention of blindness & impaired vision due to uncorrected refractive error through education, training, service delivery and advocacy.

Philanthropy
10
World Vision Project Dba Andrew Dougherty Vision F

Eliminating Preventable Blindness

Health
11
Retina Global

To provide sustainable solutions to the increasing number of people around the world afflicted with retinal diseases.

Health
12
Unite for Sight Inc

Empower communities worldwide to improve eye health and eliminate preventable blindness.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Restoringvision; the most unlike its peers is Vision Impact Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

17 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. 17 of the 21 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/17
Grantees still filing
12/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VOLUNTEER OPTOMETRIC SERVICES TO HUMANITY INC: $340,000 · OtherVOLUNTEER OPTOMETRIC SERVICES TO HUMANITY INCWORLD COUNCIL OF OPTOMETRY INC: $182,031 · OtherWORLD COUNCIL OF OPTOMETRY INCIndiana University School of Medicine: $40,000 · OtherIndiana University School of Medicine+4 more: $66,000 · Other+4 moreTHE DISABILITY FUND INC: $155,000 · Human ServicesTHE DISABILITY FUN…OHIO OPTOMETRIC FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 · Human ServicesOHIO OPTOMETRIC FO…GUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATION: $30,000 · Human ServicesGUERRERO CRYSTAL F…SIGHTSAVERS INC: $70,000 · HealthSIGHTSAVERS INCEYELLIANCE INC: $45,000 · HealthEYELLIANCE INCRESTORINGVISION: $40,000 · HealthRESTORINGVISIONKIDS DOC ON WHEELS: $20,000 · HealthKIDS DOC ON WHEE…HEALING CALIFORNIA: $10,000 · HealthSAVING KIDSIGHT: $7,500 · HealthVISION FOR THE POOR: $55,000 · InternationalVISION FOR THE …SEVA FOUNDATION: $50,000 · InternationalSEVA FOUNDATIONLIGHT FOR THE WORLD USA INC CO HERTA K: $40,000 · InternationalLIGHT FOR THE W…THE HOPE ALLIANCE: $35,000 · InternationalTHE HOPE ALLIAN…SPECIAL OLYMPICS INC: $130,000 · Recreation & SportsSPECIAL OL…
Other$628,031Human Services$215,000Health$192,500International$180,000Recreation & Sports$130,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVOLUNTEER OPTOMETRIC SERVICES TO HUMANITY INC: $340,000 over 5y, 43% of budgetWORLD COUNCIL OF OPTOMETRY INC: $182,031 over 3y, 10.0% of budgetTHE DISABILITY FUND INC: $155,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS INC: $130,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSIGHTSAVERS INC: $70,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetVISION FOR THE POOR: $55,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetSEVA FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetEYELLIANCE INC: $45,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetRESTORINGVISION: $40,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetTHE HOPE ALLIANCE: $35,000 over 1y, 8.8% of budgetOHIO OPTOMETRIC FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 over 1y, 42% of budgetGUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetKIDS DOC ON WHEELS: $20,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetVISION IMPACT INSTITUTE: $20,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetHEALING CALIFORNIA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetSAVING KIDSIGHT: $7,500 over 1y, 2.4% 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.

The Alcon Foundation …American Endowment Fo…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Alcon Foundation IncTX17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Alcon Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Optometry Giving Sight funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Optometry Giving Sight. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 21 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 Optometry Giving Sight’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