Skip to content
The Clear Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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 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.

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

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 20 grants below total $49,442,847, the rows itemized in this filing. The $163,148,227 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $113,705,380 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

  • $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

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 (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 its 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
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

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

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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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
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

  • 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 FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $1.5M · revenue +43%
  • RF
    RESULTS FOR DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE INC
    one grant, 2023 · $1.0M · revenue -4%
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
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
5
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
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
MRIGlobal

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

Science & Tech
8
Fund for the Global Fund

To encourage individuals, corporations, foundations and donor governments to support the global fund, an international foundation focused on ending three of the world's most deadly infectious diseases.

Human Services
9
Gavi Alliance

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

International
10
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
11
Pathfinder International

Pathfinder expands access to sexual and reproductive health services, opening the door to opportunities for women and all individuals to thrive-economically, educationally, and civically. driven by our country-led leadership and local…

International
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Evidence Action; 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.
04the grantee network

34 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. 34 of the 36 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
34/34
Grantees still filing
23/34
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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
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.

Good Ventures Foundat…Silicon Valley Commun…Gates FoundationEffective Ventures Fo…Mulago FoundationConrad N Hilton Found…Eleanor Crook Foundat…Follow Your Dream Fou…The Ray and Tye Noord…The Horace W Goldsmit…The Rockefeller Found…Gs Donor Advised Phil…
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

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 Clear Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Clear Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 60%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 13%
  • Trustees of Tufts College: 13% of income from government
  • Yale University: 12% 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, 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 36 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 Clear’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