Skip to content
The Fistula Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Fistula Foundation

Fistula Foundation works to end the suffering caused by the childbirth injury obstetric fistula by getting as many women treated as possible.

$14M
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$380k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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$4.5MHealth$2.1MHuman Services$2.1MReligion$567k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $1,323,980, the rows itemized in this filing. The $14,049,695 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $12,725,715 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 · $19k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $561k
  • $250k+2 grants · $743k
$150,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$41M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Cure BE Team International$380,223
Heal Africa$362,943
Hope Foundation$248,059
Advancing the Gospel In Ango$150,000
Maternal Help Hope$103,600
Healing Hands$59,699
Village Health Partnership$19,456
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, $2.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 52% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%Heal Africa: $690k → 11%Heal Africa: $307k → 9%Heal Africa: $363k → 11%Heal Africa: $265k → 9%Heal Africa: $42k → 11%Heal Africa: $230k → 9%Heal Africa: $11k → 11%Heal Africa: $207k → 9%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: $13M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$13M · 100% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Medical/Sundry

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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8.8M · 8 repeat orgs$566k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$8.8M
$566k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
+65%

Still filing today

75%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
InternationalHealthHuman ServicesReligionOther
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

  • CURE INTERNATIONAL INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $3.7M · revenue +69%
  • HF
    Hope Foundation for Women Child of Bangladesh Inc
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.9M · revenue +62% · 42% of their budget
  • DIRECT RELIEF
    4× · 2017–2020 · $319k · revenue +94%

Funded once

  • BT
    BE TEAM INTERNATIONAL INC
    one grant, 2020 · $374k · revenue -60%
  • AT
    ADVANCING THE GOSPEL IN ANGOLA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $185k · revenue +65% · 32% of their budget
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO
    one grant, 2020 · $7k
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
Hope International

Provide free medical assistance to poor people in 3rd world countries

International
2
Heal Uganda Inc
International
3
Mother Health International Incorporated

Reduce maternal mortality in low resource areas through education and healthcare infrastructure. Each program is a specific partnership with community led projects to improve quality of health care service delivery, improve systems and…

Health
4
Mali Medical Relief Fund

We serve needy families in Mali who find themselves in medical crisis. Since our founding in 2008, we have helped hundreds of patients access life saving medical care, by paying for medicines, medical tests, and surgeries. We treat complex…

Food & Nutrition
5
International Health & Development Network Inc

To develope a ministry using the earthly work of Jesus Christ as a model and thereby seek the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being of individuals in communities, esecially in developing countries by providing humanitarian…

Philanthropy
6
Doctors to the World

Medical care and education to under-served communities around the world.

—
7
Child Health Foundation

Support and Research Major Problems in Child Health Globally

International
8
East African Healing Services
—
9
Chikondi Health Foundation

The Mission of the Chikondi Health foundation is to glorify God and His Son Jesus Christ by promoting Spiritual and PhysicalHealth. The organisation administers charitable gifts for educational, Medical, financial, spiritual support for…

Health
10
Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation

Partners In Health (PIH) is a non-profit, global health organization that fights social injustice by bringing the benefits of modern medical science first and foremost to the most vulnerable communities worldwide. In Haiti, Malawi, Rwanda,…

Health
11
Healing Hands of Joy

To improve maternal child healthcare in Ethiopia and eliminate preventable childbirth injuries including obstetric fistula

Human Services
12
New Hope International Hospital

NHIH is a non-profit set up to the help with the medical care of the Sakila area of Tanzania by assisting with medical services via a health center with medical staff including a doctor, nurse/mid-wife, lab tech, and pharmacy tech along…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Heal Africa Usa; the most unlike its peers is Healing Hand Ministries 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

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 11 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CURE INTERNATIONAL INC: $3,700,177 · InternationalCURE INTERNATIONAL INCBE TEAM INTERNATIONAL INC: $373,955 · InternationalBE TEAM INTERNATIONAL INCDIRECT RELIEF: $319,000 · InternationalDIRECT RELIEF+1 more: $148,699 · InternationalHope Foundation for Women Child of Bangladesh Inc: $1,888,056 · HealthHope Foundation for Women…Maternal Help Hope Fund: $200,278 · HealthMaternal Help Hope Fund+1 more: $47,761 · HealthHEAL AFRICA USA: $2,114,027 · Human ServicesHEAL AFRICA USASIM USA INCORPORATED: $382,000 · Other+1 more: $6,670 · OtherADVANCING THE GOSPEL IN ANGOLA INC: $185,000 · Religion
International$4,541,831Health$2,136,095Human Services$2,114,027Other$388,670Religion$185,000

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 budgetCURE INTERNATIONAL INC: $3,700,177 over 4y, 4.8% of budgetHEAL AFRICA USA: $2,114,027 over 8y, 99% of budgetHope Foundation for Women Child of Bangladesh Inc: $1,888,056 over 8y, 42% of budgetBE TEAM INTERNATIONAL INC: $373,955 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetDIRECT RELIEF: $319,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMaternal Help Hope Fund: $200,278 over 2y, 21% of budgetADVANCING THE GOSPEL IN ANGOLA INC: $185,000 over 1y, 32% of budgetVILLAGE HEALTH PARTNERSHIP: $47,761 over 2y, 8.3% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Fistula Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Fistula Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 11 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 Fistula’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