Skip to content
Results for Development Institute Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Results for Development Institute Inc

We work with change agents around the globe to create self-sustaining systems that support healthy, educated people.

$11M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$545k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Science & Tech$4.5MInternational$4.4MSocial Science$1.6MHealth$837kEducation$607kFood & Nutrition$7k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $1,334,647, the rows itemized in this filing. The $10,642,184 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $9,307,537 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 · $7k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.3M
$266,474
Median grant
4
States reached
$21M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ICF MACRO INC$544,659
HARVARD GLOBAL RESEARCH AND SUPPORT SERVICES$466,792
BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC$266,474
MAISHA HEALTHCARE INC DBA MAISHA MEDS$50,000
RESTORING VISION$6,722
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 65% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%VELIR STUDIOS INC: $119k → 8%MAISHA HEALTHCARE INC DBA MAISHA MEDS: $50k → 10%THE IHANGANE PROJECT: $8k → 13%THE SYNERGOS INSTITUTE INC: $427k → 17%FEED THE CHILDREN INC: $7k → 16%INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION: $24k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION CENTER: $347k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - RSPA: $61k → 13%PATH: $60k → 9%BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC: $352k → 11%MOBILES FOR EDUCATION ALLIANCE: $104k → 7%ICF MACRO INC: $659k → 8%HARVARD GLOBAL RESEARCH AND SUPPORT SERVICES: $467k → 8%RESTORING VISION: $20k → 10%THE SYNERGOS INSTITUTE INC: $394k → 17%INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION: $8k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION CENTER: $319k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - RSPA: $8k → 13%BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC: $266k → 11%JOHN SNOW INC: $42k → 7%ICF MACRO INC: $545k → 8%HARVARD GLOBAL RESEARCH AND SUPPORT SERVICES: $221k → 8%RESTORING VISION: $7k → 10%THE SYNERGOS INSTITUTE INC: $233k → 17%HEALTH STRATEGY AND DELIVERY FOUNDATION: $977k → 14%MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH INC: $304k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - RSPA: $4k → 13%BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC: $141k → 11%ICF MACRO INC: $328k → 8%HARVARD GLOBAL RESEARCH AND SUPPORT SERVICES: $60k → 8%ID INSIGHT INC: $209k → 10%UNICEF: $725k → 17%POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL (PSI): $50k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION CENTER: $288k → 11%BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC: $34k → 11%ICF MACRO INC: $248k → 8%IDINSIGHT INC: $44k → 10%UNICEF: $138k → 17%POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL (PSI): $50k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION CENTER: $170k → 11%ICF MACRO INC: $247k → 8%AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT: $74k → 17%POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL (PSI): $25k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $140k → 11%ICF MACRO INC: $165k → 8%THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION: $47k → 17%ICF MACRO INC: $24k → 8%THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION: $14k → 17%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

WA
NY
MA
IN
NJ
CA
VA
MD
NC
DC
OK

Grants abroad, by region: $9.4M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$7.4M · 79% · 13 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SERVICES

Sub-Saharan Africa$1.6M · 17% · 23 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SERVICES

South Asia$330k · 4% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SERVICES

South America$53k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SERVICES

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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$11M · 15 repeat orgs$1.4M to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
6

Total granted

$11M
$1.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+42%

Still filing today

80%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k 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
InternationalEducationHealthSocial ScienceOther
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

  • DUKE UNIVERSITY
    5× · 2017–2021 · $1.3M · revenue +51%
  • UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF
    2× · 2021–2022 · $863k · revenue +64%
  • HG
    Harvard Global Research and Support Services Inc
    3× · 2022–2024 · $747k · revenue +147%

Funded once

  • HS
    Health Strategy and Delivery Foundation
    one grant, 2019 · $977k · revenue -42%
  • VS
    VELIR STUDIOS INC
    one grant, 2018 · $119k
  • MF
    MOBILES FOR EDUCATION ALLIANCEgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $104k · revenue +42% · 27% of their budget
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
International Aids Vaccine Initiative Inc

A global nonprofit biomedical research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.

International
2
International Development Enterprises

See schedule o for a more detailed description of ide's mission statement and achievements.

International
3
International Center for Research On Women

The international center for research for women (icrw) is a global research institute, with a mission to advance rights and opportunities for women, girls, and structurally excluded populations with actionable evidence and solutions.

International
4
Global Alliance for Tb Drug Development Inc

Tb alliance is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the discovery, development and delivery of better, faster-acting and affordable tuberculosis drugs that are available to those who need them.

Health
5
Fajr Scientific

To provide multi-specialty surgical care, humanitarian aid and educational support to people in low- and middle-income countries.

Science & Tech
6
Himalayan Cataract Project Inc

We enable countries to cure avoidable blindness by developing high quality, cost-effective eye care in underserved areas of the world.

International
7
Center for Global Development

Reduce global poverty and improve lives through innovative economic research that drives better policy and practice by the world's top decision makers. we focus on the intersection of developing countries and the governments, institutions…

Human Services
8
International Crops Research Institute

To reduce poverty, hunger, malnutrition and environmental degradation in the dryland tropics

International
9
Institute for State Effectiveness

The institute for state effectiveness seeks to close the governance gap and advance inclusive growth so that states and markets deliver to citizens. ise advances practical approaches to strengthen capacity for transformation, through…

International
10
MRIGlobal

To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.

Science & Tech
11
Ibis Reproductive Health Inc

Ibis reproductive health drives change through bold, rigorous research and principled partnerships that advance sexual and reproductive autonomy, choices and health worldwide.

Health
12
Gavi Alliance

To save lives and protect people's health by increasing equitable and sustainable use of vaccines.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Innovations for Poverty Action a Nonprofit Corporation; the most unlike its peers is The Rockefeller Foundation. 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

18 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. 18 of the 23 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)
18/18
Grantees still filing
11/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ICF MACRO INC: $2,215,598 · OtherICF MACRO INCMATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH INC: $1,777,327 · OtherMATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH INCAbt Associates Inc: $883,801 · OtherAbt Associates Inc+4 more: $346,413 · Other+4 moreTHE SYNERGOS INSTITUTE INC: $1,053,755 · InternationalTHE SYNERGOS INSTITUTE INCHealth Strategy and Delivery Foundation: $977,147 · InternationalHealth Strategy and Delivery FoundationUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $862,796 · InternationalUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEFBUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC: $793,068 · InternationalBUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS …ID INSIGHT INC: $253,697 · InternationalID INSIGHT INCFEED THE CHILDREN INC: $141,936 · International+2 more: $110,000 · InternationalDUKE UNIVERSITY: $1,263,379 · EducationDUKE UNIVERSITYHarvard Global Research and Support Services Inc: $747,350 · EducationHarvard Global Research…AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT: $290,967 · EducationAMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF …MOBILES FOR EDUCATION ALLIANCE: $104,000 · Education+1 more: $72,287 · EducationRESTORINGVISION: $27,164 · HealthTIP Global Health: $8,000 · HealthINNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $32,581 · Social Science
Other$5,223,139International$4,192,399Education$2,477,983Health$35,164Social Science$32,581

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 budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $1,263,379 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SYNERGOS INSTITUTE INC: $1,053,755 over 3y, 8.8% of budgetHealth Strategy and Delivery Foundation: $977,147 over 1y, 12% of budgetUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $862,796 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS INC: $793,068 over 4y, 3.1% of budgetHarvard Global Research and Support Services Inc: $747,350 over 3y, 6.4% of budgetAMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT: $290,967 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetID INSIGHT INC: $253,697 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetFEED THE CHILDREN INC: $141,936 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPOPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL: $125,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMOBILES FOR EDUCATION ALLIANCE: $104,000 over 1y, 27% of budgetUniversity of Notre Dame du Lac: $72,287 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION: $60,457 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPATH: $60,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMAISHA MEDS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetINNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $32,581 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetRESTORINGVISION: $27,164 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTIP Global Health: $8,000 over 1y, 2.5% 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.

Gates FoundationConrad N Hilton Found…Johns Hopkins Univers…University of ChicagoSilicon Valley Commun…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Gates FoundationWA19× affinity7 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Gates Foundation · Conrad N Hilton Foundation · Johns Hopkins University · University of Chicago · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Results for Development Institute Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Results for Development Institute Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Feed the Children Inc: 1% of 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 · 0–50%
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 23 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 Results for Development Institute’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