Skip to content
Posner Center for International Development at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Posner Center for International Development

The posner center's mission is to catalyze the global development community, at home and abroad, to collaborate for greater impact, with a vision for a more equitable and prosperous world.

$61k
Granted FY2022
4
Grants FY2022
2
States reached
$20k
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, FY2017 to 2022.

International$113kEducation$28kEnvironment$26kRecreation & Sports$20kCommunity Improvement$15kPhilanthropy$15kHealth$15kFood & Nutrition$10k
02FY2022 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$15,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$315k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE RECREATION PROJECT$20,000
SHADHIKA$15,000
RANGE OF MOTION PROJECT$15,000
THE CHIJNAYA FOUNDATION$11,000
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 (FY17–20, $32k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AFRICA DEVELOPMENT PROMISE: $20k → 12%AFRICA DEVELOPMENT PROMISE: $12k → 12%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.
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.
03Its 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
Building Schools in Africa
Education
2
Strategies for International Development

Strategies for International Development (SID) develops, applies, and promotes better methods for eradicating rural poverty. We help small farmers make the transition from subsistence to successful commercial farming. We carryout programs…

International
3
Educate Girls

Educate Girls promotes and protects the right of girls to a quality education and works by supporting partners in geographies where the need is greatest to mobilize communities, enroll girls into school and improve learning outcomes. Our…

International
4
Rise International

RISE builds primary schools in rural Angola to educate children, empower communities and contribute to the rebuilding of the country.

International
5
Zoe Empowers

Zoe Empowers is a global network of local organizations throughout Africa and India providing a replicable and scalable framework whereby youth led or resourced families are provided the training, resources, and community support to become…

International
6
Splash International

The mission of Splash International and its subsidiaries is to ensure clean water for children. Splash partners with governments and local organizations to deliver sustainable water, sanitation, hygiene, and menstrual health programs in…

Environment
7
Africa Agility

Our mission is to equip underserved youthespecially women and girls with future-ready skills in technology Agile methodologies and entrepreneurship empowering them to access dignified work drive innovation and compete globally.

Education
8
Direct Action for Women Now World-Wide Inc Formerly Indias Daughters Inc
Philanthropy
9
Empowering Lives International

Empowering Lives International (ELI) ignites world changers. We equip families and orphans to crush poverty, embrace Christ, and share their transformation with others through their God-honoring income, their deepening relationship with…

Religion
10
Charity Global Inc

Charity: water is a non-profit organization bringing clean and safe water to people around the world. continued on schedule o.

Human Services
11
Girls Education Collaborative Inc

GEC partners with locally-led organizations to catalyze and support sustainable, community-driven solutions that remove social, economic, and gender-based barriers keeping girls out of school in under-resourced regions of the global south.

International
12
Annapurna Global Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Chijnaya Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Elephant Energy Inc. 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

14 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/14
Grantees still filing
7/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES: $21,400 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISESENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS- INTERNATIONAL: $16,500 · InternationalENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS- INTERNATION…AFRICA SCHOOL ASSISTANCE PROJECT: $11,400 · InternationalAFRICA SCHOOL ASSISTANCE PROJECTGLOBAL HOPE NETWORK INTL INC: $11,400 · InternationalGLOBAL HOPE NETWORK INTL INCTHE CHIJNAYA FOUNDATION INC: $11,000 · InternationalTHE CHIJNAYA FOUNDATION INCGLOBAL SEED SAVERS: $10,000 · InternationalGLOBAL SEED SAVERSShadhika Project: $35,000 · OtherShadhika ProjectMARSHALL DIRECT FUND: $15,000 · OtherMARSHALL DIRECT FUNDELEPHANT ENERGY INC: $15,000 · OtherELEPHANT ENERGY INCAFRICA DEVELOPMENT PROMISE: $32,000 · Human ServicesAFRICA DEVELOPM…REGIS UNIVERSITY: $18,000 · EducationREGIS UNIVER…The Girls Athletic Leadership School of Denver: $9,650 · EducationThe Girls At…RECREATION PROJECT: $20,000 · Recreation & SportsRECREATIO…Range Of Motion Project: $15,000 · Health
International$81,700Other$65,000Human Services$32,000Education$27,650Recreation & Sports$20,000Health$15,000

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 budgetShadhika Project: $35,000 over 2y, 5.0% of budgetAFRICA DEVELOPMENT PROMISE: $32,000 over 2y, 9.9% of budgetINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES: $21,400 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRECREATION PROJECT: $20,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetREGIS UNIVERSITY: $18,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetELEPHANT ENERGY INC: $15,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetRange Of Motion Project: $15,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetGLOBAL HOPE NETWORK INTL INC: $11,400 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE CHIJNAYA FOUNDATION INC: $11,000 over 1y, 3.5% 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.

Globalgiving Foundati…Colorado Gives Founda…The Denver FoundationMorgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Globalgiving Foundation IncDC15.1× affinity5 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Globalgiving Foundation Inc · Colorado Gives Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Posner Center for International Development funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Posner Center for International Development. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–40%
    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 14 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Posner Center for International Development’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