· Public charity
Save The Children Federation Inc
Save the children is an international nonprofit children's relief and development organization.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 239 grants below total $55,509,761 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $632,693,214 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $577,183,453 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k24 grants · $166k
- $10k–50k76 grants · $1.8M
- $50k–250k89 grants · $11M
- $250k+50 grants · $43M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SAVE THE CHILDREN ACTION NETWORK | $6,740,824 |
| TANGO INTERNATIONAL INC | $3,910,372 |
| INNOVATION FOR POVERTY ACTION | $2,151,252 |
| MERCY CORPS | $2,002,059 |
| CAUSAL DESIGN INC | $1,974,708 |
| SCUS HEAD START PROGRAMS INC | $1,891,834 |
| PERRY CO BOARD OF EDUCATION | $1,276,441 |
| CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION | $1,238,580 |
| WHITLEY CO BOARD OF ED | $1,112,469 |
| BEREA COLLEGE OFFC OF FN'L AFF | $1,077,045 |
| GREENE COUNTY SCHOOLS | $1,062,373 |
| COCKE CO BOARD OF EDUCATION | $1,014,292 |
| THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY | $988,204 |
| LOUISVILLE URBAN LEAGUE INC | $800,000 |
| LETCHER COUNTY SCHOOLS | $702,934 |
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 (FY17–24, $18.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 85% 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
Grants abroad, by region — $564M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: SUPPORT SOMALIA COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT NIGERIA COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT ETHIOPIA COUNTRY OFFICE
Stated purpose: SUPPORT SCI CENTRE · SUPPORT IPU SECONDMENT · SUPPORT NORWAY
Stated purpose: SUPPORT AFGHANISTAN COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT NEPAL & BHUTAN COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT BANGLADESH COUNTRY OFFICE
Stated purpose: SUPPORT YEMEN COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT SYRIA RESPONSE OFFICE · SUPPORT OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRORITY COUNTRY OFFICE
Stated purpose: SUPPORT MYANMAR COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT LAOS COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT VIETNAM COUNTRY OFFICE
Stated purpose: SUPPORT UKRAINE COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT GEORGIA COUNTRY OFFICE
Stated purpose: SUPPORT COLOMBIA COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT PERU COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT VENEZUELA RESPONSE OFFICE
Stated purpose: SUPPORT GUATEMALA COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT EL SALVADOR COUNTRY OFFICE · SUPPORT HAITI COUNTRY OFFICE
Stated purpose: SUPPORT MEXICO
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. 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.
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 +30% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
465 repeat relationships — 191 still active in FY2024, 274 since wound down; 45 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.8M 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
- STSave the Children Action Network8× · 2017–2024 · $43M · revenue +10% · 91% of their budget
- MCMercy Corps8× · 2017–2024 · $16M · revenue +19%
- IFINNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION7× · 2018–2024 · $7.9M · revenue +28%
Funded once
- FAFUNDACION ATENCION ATENCION INCgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $310k · revenue +251%
- AIAMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCESone grant, 2022 · $305k · revenue +20%
- DCDOUGLAS CHEROKEE ECONOMIC AUTHORITY INCone grant, 2021 · $303k · revenue -14%
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.
By advocating for quality early care and education, empowering families with information and financial support, and building the capabilities of educators, Children's Council of San Francisco ensures that every child in San Francisco has…
Advocate for early childhood social & economic development and professionals who work with children and their families to advance this mission.
We deliver head start and related programs throughout southeastern az for prenatal through preschool aged children and their families. the focus of our work is: early childhood education & school readiness; health & nutrition; and parent…
Cpcd's programs are based on the comprehensive head start model and are child and family-focused. cpcd adopts a two-generation approach that focuses on creating opportunities for, and addressing the needs of, both vulnerable young children…
To provide education and support services that promote and encourage quality care, education, healthy growth and development of all children and families in del norte county
To provide a high-quality, comprehensive literacy-rich child development program and pro-family system of services and supports primarily to children and families who are economically disadvantaged, which results in children who are…
Community action project of tulsa county inc.'s (cap tulsa) mission is to help young children in lower-income families grow up and achieve economic success.
Child & family resource builds stronger children, youth, and families through prevention, education and intervention.
The resource connection's mission is to engage families, empower communities, and enrich the lives of the residents of amador and calaveras counties.
Richmond County Partnership for Children advances a high-quality, accountable system of care and early education for each child beginning with a healthy birth, and supports families to improve early childhood health and development to…
Child care resources' mission is to help kids grow into successful adults by enriching the learning environment of their crucial early years.
The organization is dedicated to combining education and advocacy to expand opportunities for children and families in order to strengthen the voice of the latino community based on the belief that the most effective way to support latino…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Inspire Development Centers and the most unlike its peers is Love Feeds. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
509 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. 509 of the 979 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 Save the Children Action Network ↗
- Who funds Mercy Corps ↗
- Who funds INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds SCUS HEAD START PROGRAMS INC ↗
- Who funds Collaborative for Children ↗
- Who funds THE LOUISVILLE URBAN LEAGUE INC ↗
- Who funds BEREA COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND ↗
- Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
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 loosely connected circle, clustered around a few shared anchors.
Open a dossier: Jobs for Kentucky's Graduates Inc · Juntos y Unidos por Puerto Rico Inc · Fwdus Education Fund Inc · The Onestar Foundation · The George W Bush Foundation · Berea College · Share Our Strength · United Way of Greater Houston · Collaborative for Children · Puerto Rico Community Foundation Inc · Fact Forward · The Houston Food Bank
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 Save The Children Federation Inc 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.
- Scus Head Start Programs Inc — 93% of income from government
- Education Development Center Inc — 65% of income from government
- Redlands Christian Migrant Association Inc — 51% of income from government
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Brandeis University — 9% of income from government
- Early Learning Coalition of Miami Dade Monroe Inc — 4% of income from government
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.