· Private foundation
Renova International Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k3 grants · $19k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $22k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Asia Connect | $21,957 |
| Water for Life International | $8,000 |
| Trauma Intervention Programs | $7,000 |
| Kilimanjaro Mission of Hope and Out | $3,645 |
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 (FY18–22, $177k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% 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
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 5% of Renova International Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +43% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
7 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2023, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (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 FY2023, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $11k 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
- SPStarfish Project Incorporated4× · 2018–2022 · $175k · revenue +203%
- CSCOFAN SURVIVAL FUND INC3× · 2020–2022 · $65k · revenue +97%
- ISINTERNATIONAL SERVICE FELLOWSHIP2× · 2017–2021 · $15k · revenue +43%
Funded once
- ASAMNA SANCTUARYone grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue -94% · 28% of their budget
- GRGLOBAL RESOURCE GROUP INCORPORATEDone grant, 2019 · $13k
- KFKMHO Family Wells Projectone grant, 2022 · $10k
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.
ChinsSource is a trusted partner and platform for educating the global church on critical issues facing the church and ministries in China and for connecting Christians inside and outside China to advance the kingdom of God globally
Religious, charitable and educational missionary work in the Amazon River basin in Brazil
The organization is a missionary sending/sponsoring organizations that engage in Christian evangelism and training leaders for the churches in SE Asia
Religious
Christianity Today is a global community inspired by evangelical conviction to advance the stories and ideas of the kingdom of God. Our mission is to elevate the storytellers and sages of the global church.
Equip ministries trains overseas pastors and leaders, empowers the church, provides humanitarian aid, and attempts to reach the unreached peoples around the world by working with church leaders to fulfil
Eden Ministry seeks to advocate for trafficked victims in Asia to reach rescue and restore them from exploitation
Reaching and teaching pastors in the majority world.
train church leaders and planting churches outside USA
Christian broadcasting, Building of low power transmitters, Distribution of solar power radio receivers.
ACCI serves pioneering Christians, empowering them to proclaim the gospel, fulfill their God-given visions, and advance the kingdom of God. ACCI longs for a world where lives are transformed through the Holy Spirit, where new disciples are…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is International Service Fellowship and the most unlike its peers is Amna Sanctuary. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 19 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 Starfish Project Incorporated ↗
- Who funds COFAN SURVIVAL FUND INC ↗
- Who funds WATER FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds Asia Connect ↗
- Who funds AMNA SANCTUARY ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FELLOWSHIP ↗
- Who funds ENGLISH LANGUAGE INSTITUTE IN CHINA ↗
- Who funds KILIMANJARO MISSION OF HOPE & OUTREACH ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM ENCOUNTERS INC ↗
- Who funds CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC ↗
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: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Renova International Foundation 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.