Skip to content
The Armand Hammer United World College of the Amer at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Armand Hammer United World College of the Amer

The primary mission of THE ARMAND HAMMER UNITED WORLD COLLEGE OF THE AMERican west (college) is education as a two-year, pre-college program.

$34M
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $5,390, the rows itemized in this filing. The $33,989,686 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $33,984,296 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.
$4,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$573M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LAS VEGAS PEACE & JUSTICE CENTER$4,000
NEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY$1,390
02The need
02

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 (FY25–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 23%, against an area that typically sits at 25%. 0% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 25%LAS VEGAS PEACE & JUSTICE CENTER: $4k → 23%NEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY: $1k → 23%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $38M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 6 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)$17M · 45% · 9 grants

Stated purpose: GRANTS TO RECIPIENTS

Central America and the Caribbean$16M · 42% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: GRANTS TO RECIPIENTS

East Asia and the Pacific$2.6M · 7% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: GRANTS TO RECIPIENTS

Sub-Saharan Africa$1.2M · 3% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: GRANTS TO RECIPIENTS

South Asia$557k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: GRANTS TO RECIPIENTS

North America (Canada and Mexico)$550k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: GRANTS TO RECIPIENTS

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 field
03the grantee network

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2025–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2025 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 2 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.

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

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

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 2 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Armand Hammer United World College of the Amer’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