Skip to content
The Barford Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Barford Family 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.

$7k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
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.

Education$50kInternational$20kHuman Services$8kHealth$3kAnimals$2kPublic Safety & Disaster$2kEmployment$1kYouth Development$450Other$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$58k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GLOBAL LEARNING EXCHG INITIATIVE$5,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
Individual grant recipient$500
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 (FY18–20, $450) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 44% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 13%EL SALITRE WOMANS AND CHILDRENS CTR: $250 → 12%THE BUDDY FUND: $200 → 21%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$74k · 5 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +56% since the first grant, against +46% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
9

Total granted

$74k
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+56%
+46%

Still filing today

60%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
Human ServicesInternationalAnimalsYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • GL
    Global Learning Exchange Initiative
    7× · 2017–2023 · $65k · revenue +160%
  • GC
    GREAT CIRCLE
    3× · 2017–2019 · $7k · revenue -99%
  • FX
    FRAGILE X RESOURCE CENTER
    2× · 2017–2018 · $750

Funded once

  • PP
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
  • TF
    TRUE FAITHFUL PET RESCUE
    one grant, 2020 · $1k
  • WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC
    one grant, 2022 · $1k · revenue -40%
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
Living Goods

Living goods aims to save lives at scale by supporting digitally empowered community health workers. we work with governments and partners to leverage smart mobile technology, rigorously strengthen performance, and relentlessly innovate to…

International
2
Onechild Global

One child global's mission is to advocate for children in hard places and provide holistic care so they have hope and thrive. onechild global's 355 hope centers provide holistic child development progress in nineteen countries.

International
3
Strategic Global Response

Strategic Global Response effectively and efficiently delivers life-saving care to people affected by humanitarian crises, in the most challenging situations on earth

Human Services
4
Whole Child International

Whole Child International promotes positive developmental outcomes for children through child protection systems strengthening and improving the quality of care for children in low- and middle-income countries.

Youth Development
5
Global Gifts Inc

Serving impoverished artisans and producers in the developing world by providing a fair income and employment for people of limited opportunity.

International
6
Yours Humanly

Yours Humanly (YH) transforms the lives of children in need around the world by providing access to quality education and equitable resources. Through its two flagship initiatives, Coloring Futures and Bridging Gaps, YH has completed 34…

Education
7
Childrens House International

Children's house international provides ethical adoption services, child focused recruitment, and family support. we support disadvantaged children with humanitarian aid in countries worldwide.

—
8
Global Kids Inc

Global kids educates, inspires and mobilizes youth to become global citizens who are positively engaged in the world and are prepared for their future.

Youth Development
9
Global Exchange

Its goal is to increase global awareness and move the U.S. public to action while building international and domestic partnerships around the world

International
10
Crisis Response International

To resource, train, and mobilize volunteers, churches,& other organizations to respond to disasters in the united states & world-wide

Public Safety & Disaster
11
Children At Risk

Children At Risk (C@R) is a statewide nonprofit organization whose mission is to serve as a catalyst for change to improve the quality of life for children through strategic research, public policy analysis, education, collaboration, and…

Crime & Legal
12
Feeding Children Everywhere Inc

Feeding children everywhere is committed to providing healthy meals to those in need. we are committed to sustainability. creating a hunger-free world will be possible if we have an awareness of our impact on the world around us. we have…

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is World Central Kitchen Inc; the most unlike its peers is El Salitre Womens and Childrens Center. 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

9 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. 9 of the 17 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Global Learning Exchange Initiative: $65,000 · InternationalGlobal Learning Exchange Initiative+1 more: $1,000 · InternationalGREAT CIRCLE: $7,000 · OtherGREAT CIRCLEGLOBAL LEARNING EXCHG INITIATIVE: $5,000 · OtherGLOBAL LEARNING EXCHG I…PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $1,250 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOODTRUE FAITHFUL PET RESCUE: $1,000 · OtherTRUE FAITHFUL PET RESCU…Individual grant recipient: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipi…FRAGILE X RESOURCE CENTER: $750 · OtherAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: $600 · Other+3 more: $900 · OtherAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $500 · Human ServicesEL SALITRE WOMENS AND CHILDRENS CENTER: $250 · Human ServicesTHE BUDDY FUND: $200 · Human ServicesSPROG INC: $250 · Youth DevelopmentHOUSTON HUMANE SOCIETY: $250 · Animals
International$66,000Other$17,500Human Services$950Youth Development$250Animals$250

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 budgetGlobal Learning Exchange Initiative: $65,000 over 7y, 9.1% of budgetGREAT CIRCLE: $7,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAlive Inc: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHOUSTON HUMANE SOCIETY: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BUDDY FUND: $200 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

St Louis Community Fo…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
St Louis Community Foundation IncMO15.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: St Louis Community 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 The Barford Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Barford Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%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 · 0–15%
    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 17 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-PF 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 Barford Family’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