Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

The Clear Fund

Givewell is dedicated to finding and funding outstanding giving opportunities in global health and development, sharing the full details of our analysis with everyone for free.

$163M
Granted FY2024still arriving
20
Grants FY2024still arriving
9
States reached
$19M
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

International$406MHuman Services$16MScience & Tech$9.5MEducation$6.8MHealth$4.8MSocial Science$2.4MFood & Nutrition$920kEnvironment$404kOther$0
02FY2024 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 20 grants below total $49,442,847 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $163,148,227 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $113,705,380 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

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $758k
  • $250k+13 grants · $49M
$895,999
Median grant
9
States reached
$288M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AGAINST MALARIA FOUNDATION$19,219,603
HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL$11,928,342
CLINTON HEALTH ACCESS INITIATIVE - TB$4,500,000
EVIDENCE ACTION-MATERNAL SYPHILIS$2,874,362
NEW INCENTIVES$2,218,419
ALIMA USA INC$2,000,000
YALE RESEARCH INITIATIVE$1,299,147
CLINTON HEALTH ACCESS INITIATIVE - ORSZINC$1,179,836
DIMGAGI INC$1,000,186
DEVELOPMENT INNOVATION LAB UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO$895,999
CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE GLOBAL ACTION AT UC BERKELEY$787,500
MALENGO - UGANDAGERMANY PROGRAM$500,000
MIRACLEFEET$261,936
EVIDENCE ACTION (IFA)$198,993
CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT$197,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $14.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%GIVEDIRECTLY: $3.4M → 17%GIVEDIRECTLY: $3.4M → 17%GIVEDIRECTLY: $2.3M → 17%GIVEDIRECTLY: $1.8M → 17%GIVEDIRECTLY: $1.8M → 17%GIVEDIRECTLY: $1.6M → 17%CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT: $197k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

IL
NY
MA
CT
CA
MO
MD
DE
NC
DC
GA

Grants abroad, by region — $114M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 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)$113M · 99% · 8 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATING SUPPORT · EYEGLASSES · SEASONAL MALARIA CHEMOPREVENTION PROGRAM

North America (Canada and Mexico)$619k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: VITAMIN A SUPPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

East Asia and the Pacific$238k · 0% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: MOBILE CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAM · WHO PREQUALIFICATION FOR MOXIDECTIN

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$432M · 21 repeat orgs$7.2M to everyone else

21 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
8

Total granted

$432M
$5.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
+74%

Still filing today

95%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.7M 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
InternationalEducationHealthHuman ServicesFood & NutritionSocial ScienceOther

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

  • TA
    The Against Malaria Foundation
    8× · 2017–2024 · $183M · revenue +29% · 69% of their budget
  • HK
    HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL
    8× · 2017–2024 · $41M · revenue +44%
  • AU
    ALIMA USA INC
    3× · 2021–2024 · $16M · revenue +70% · 51% of their budget

Funded once

  • RI
    RICE INSTITUTE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $2.4M · revenue -4%
  • OA
    ONE ACRE FUND
    one grant, 2023 · $1.5M · revenue +1%
  • RF
    RESULTS FOR DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE INC
    one grant, 2023 · $1.0M · revenue -4%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
International Aids Vaccine Initiative Inc

A nonprofit scientific 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
Intrahealth International Inc

Our mission is to improve the performance of health workers and strengthen the systems in which they work.

Health
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
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…

International
6
MRIGlobal

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

Science & Tech
7
Alight

Alight builds a meaningful life for and with the displaced. not simply addressing basic needs, but building a life filled with joy, dignity, connection, and purpose. we walk with them along their entire journey of displacement and deliver…

International
8
Gavi Alliance

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

International
9
International Budget Partnership

Ibp works with civil society, governments, international institutions and the private sector to bring about a world in which empowered citizens participate in open, inclusive public budgeting processes to shape policies and practices that…

International
10
Partnersglobal

Partnersglobal (partners) works through a global network to support local leaders and create partnerships that transform conflict, strengthen democratic institutions, and achieve sustainable development.

International
11
Partners in Food Solutions

Improve the food value chain in developing countries by mobilizing corporate volunteers to share knowledge and expertise with small and growing food processors.

International
12
Devworks International

Devworks international is dedicated to a society where all people enjoy the freedom to pursue their own sustainable development. we contribute to this by strengthening the capacity of local organizations.

Human Services

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Evidence Action and the most unlike its peers is The Imperial College Foundation Inc. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyHealth Access Advocacy and …Community FoundationsYouth Sports ProgramsPolicy Research and AdvocacyFaith-Based Liberal Arts Co…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 21 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%3%<5yr14%0%5–10yr19%44%10–20yr16%28%20–35yr13%6%35–55yr16%19%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%0%5–10yr19%43%10–20yr16%44%20–35yr13%3%35–55yr16%10%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/36
the rest of the field
13%
240,396/1,819,529

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.

04the grantee network

34 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 34 of the 36 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
34/34
Grantees still filing
22/34
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

NEW INCENTIVES — $98,851,033 · InternationalNEW INCENTIVESHELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL — $40,542,863 · InternationalHELEN KELLER INTERNATIONALEVIDENCE ACTION — $33,081,872 · InternationalEVIDENCE ACTIONALIMA USA INC — $16,455,542 · InternationalALIMA USA INCCLINTON HEALTH ACCESS INITIATIVE INC — $10,709,877 · International+10 more — $5,412,477 · InternationalThe Against Malaria Foundation — $183,419,709 · HealthThe Against Malaria FoundationSIGHTSAVERS INC — $16,125,932 · HealthSIGHTSAVERS INC+2 more — $1,009,936 · HealthThe Imperial College Foundation Inc — $10,842,673 · EducationYale University — $2,749,164 · EducationUniversity of Chicago — $2,697,386 · Education+3 more — $751,217 · EducationGIVEDIRECTLY INC — $14,504,012 · Human Services+1 more — $197,000 · Human ServicesPLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC — $3,688,000 · Philanthropy+1 more — $25,000 · PhilanthropyRICE INSTITUTE INC — $2,423,199 · Social Science+1 more — $50,000 · Social ScienceDIMAGI INC — $1,049,908 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — $787,500 · OtherGLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR IMPROVED NUTRITION — $405,402 · OtherNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION INC — $272,888 · Other+1 more — $25,000 · Other
International$205,053,664Health$200,555,577Education$17,040,440Human Services$14,701,012Philanthropy$3,713,000Social Science$2,473,199Other$2,540,698

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetThe Against Malaria Foundation — $183,419,709 over 8y, 69% of budgetNEW INCENTIVES — $98,851,033 over 5y, 77% of budgetHELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL — $40,542,863 over 8y, 16% of budgetEVIDENCE ACTION — $33,081,872 over 8y, 29% of budgetALIMA USA INC — $16,455,542 over 3y, 51% of budgetSIGHTSAVERS INC — $16,125,932 over 7y, 57% of budgetGIVEDIRECTLY INC — $14,504,012 over 7y, 5.0% of budgetThe Imperial College Foundation Inc — $10,842,673 over 2y, 48% of budgetCLINTON HEALTH ACCESS INITIATIVE INC — $10,709,877 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetPLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC — $3,688,000 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetYale University — $2,749,164 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago — $2,697,386 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetONE ACRE FUND — $1,518,587 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetPRECISION DEVELOPMENT INC — $1,096,678 over 4y, 11% of budgetRESULTS FOR DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE INC — $1,006,445 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetMIRACLEFEET — $909,936 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetThe End Fund Inc — $776,646 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetMALENGO INC — $500,000 over 1y, 44% of budgetGLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR IMPROVED NUTRITION — $405,402 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetID INSIGHT INC — $315,500 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION INC — $272,888 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetTrustees of Tufts College — $203,796 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBLACKSMITH INSTITUTE INC — $200,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetCENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT — $197,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC — $150,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLIVING GOODS — $143,451 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetPROJECT HEALTHY CHILDREN INC — $131,430 over 5y, 3.1% of budgetThe Fistula Foundation — $100,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSPARK MICROGRANTS INC — $73,740 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetTHE URBAN INSTITUTE — $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY — $47,421 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetVISIONSPRING INC — $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetVITAMIN ANGEL ALLIANCE INC — $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
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.

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.

Good Ventures FoundationCA28.3× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Good Ventures Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Gates Foundation · Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc · Mulago Foundation · Conrad N Hilton Foundation · Eleanor Crook Foundation · Follow Your Dream Foundation Inc · The Ray and Tye Noorda Foundation · The Horace W Goldsmith Foundation · The Rockefeller Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc

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 The Clear Fund 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 60%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 13%
  • Trustees of Tufts College13% of income from government
  • Yale University12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
6get no government money at all
8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY2025

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 36 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph