Skip to content
The Global Development Incubator Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Global Development Incubator Inc

The global development incubator, inc.

$14M
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$13M
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, FY2019 to 2024.

Food & Nutrition$13MInternational$9.7MHealth$3.8MEnvironment$754kCommunity Improvement$134kPhilanthropy$76kHuman Services$63kYouth Development$15kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $12,892,426, the rows itemized in this filing. The $14,419,476 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,527,050 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 · $37k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $124k
  • $250k+1 grant · $13M
$124,178
Median grant
2
States reached
$17M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ACELI AFRICA INC$12,731,616
GDI SOLUTIONS INC$124,178
ALLIANCE FOR GLOBAL WATER ADAPTATION INC$36,632
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 (FY21–21, $53k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%REFUGEE INVESTMENT NETWORK INC: $53k → 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.

Grants abroad, by region: $1.5M 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.

Sub-Saharan Africa$1.1M · 75% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: AGRICULTURE, HEALTH, RESEARCH & EDUCATION, CLIMATE CHANGE

East Asia and the Pacific$341k · 22% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: HEALTH, RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$33k · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: RESEARCH AND CLIMATE CHANGE

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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$26M · 5 repeat orgs$1.8M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +124% since the first grant, against +90% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
13

Total granted

$26M
$1.8M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+124%
+90%

Still filing today

100%
92%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’19’20’21’23’24
HealthInternationalYouth DevelopmentArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesOther
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

  • AA
    ACELI AFRICA INC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $21M · revenue +351% · 74% of their budget
  • TH
    THE HEALTH INITIATIVE INC
    2× · 2019–2020 · $2.9M · revenue +849% · 64% of their budget
  • AF
    ALLIANCE FOR GLOBAL WATER ADAPTATION INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $343k · revenue +33% · 28% of their budget

Funded once

  • CI
    CITIESRISE INC
    one grant, 2021 · $836k · revenue -3% · 26% of their budget
  • IA
    ISF ADVISORS INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $425k · revenue +1%
  • CC
    COLIBRI CATALYST INCgraduated
    2× · 2022–2023 · $287k · revenue +205% · 100% of their budget
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 nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.

International
2
Accion International

Our mission is to create a fair and inclusive economy where underserved people have quality financial choices and opportunities to improve their economic well-being. we find and help build innovative companies with the potential to reach…

International
3
Middle East Investment Initiative Inc

Middle east investment initiative, inc. (meii) stimulates sustainable economic activity and long-lasting job creation in the middle east and north africa (mena) by designing and deploying finance and technical assistance programs to…

Community Improvement
4
Watsi Inc

Watsi, inc. is a san francisco-based non-profit organization that directly connects people through technology to fund life-changing healthcare for patients around the world. since launching in 2012, the organization has helped more than…

Health
5
The Global Development Incubator Inc

The global development incubator, inc. (gdi) provides strategic, operational, programmatic, and implementation support services to build startups and partnerships driving social impact around the world.

International
6
Development Gateway Inc

Development gateway (dg) creates tools and design processes that help collect, visualize, and use data for a more equitable world. for 20 years, we have built systems, dashboards, and tools to create more effective, open, and engaging…

International
7
Washington Area Community Investment Fund Inc

The washington area community investment fund (wacif) is a nonprofit community loan fund focused on increasing equity and economic opportunity in the washington, dc area's underserved communities. wacif's mission is driven is driven by…

—
8
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
9
Aire Ventures Inc

At aire ventures, we scale technology and innovation solutions to systemic gaps in access, opportunity, and racial equity.

Community Improvement
10
International Development Enterprises

See schedule o for a more detailed description of ide's mission statement and achievements.

International
11
Upturn Inc

Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.

—
12
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Citiesrise Inc; the most unlike its peers is Red Eagle Soaring. 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

17 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. 17 of the 18 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.

6
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
14/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ACELI AFRICA INC: $21,483,639 · InternationalACELI AFRICA INC+1 more: $114,788 · InternationalTHE HEALTH INITIATIVE INC: $2,939,319 · HealthTHE HEALTH INITIAT…CITIESRISE INC: $836,364 · HealthCITIESRISE INCBUSINESS FOR HEALTH SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INC: $799,771 · HealthBUSINESS FOR HEALT…+1 more: $10,000 · HealthISF ADVISORS INC: $424,817 · Food & NutritionALLIANCE FOR GLOBAL WATER ADAPTATION INC: $343,213 · Science & TechCOLIBRI CATALYST INC: $286,573 · EnvironmentGDI-SOLUTIONS INC: $253,442 · PhilanthropyWOMEN OF THE WORLD ENDOWMENT INC: $76,313 · OtherSacramento LGBT Community Center: $10,000 · OtherTHE CONSILIUM BOTS INC: $7,216 · OtherREFUGEE INVESTMENT NETWORK INC: $53,200 · OtherWAKING THE VILLAGE: $7,500 · Other+3 more: $15,000 · Other
International$21,598,427Health$4,585,454Food & Nutrition$424,817Science & Tech$343,213Environment$286,573Philanthropy$253,442Other$169,229

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetACELI AFRICA INC: $21,483,639 over 4y, 74% of budgetTHE HEALTH INITIATIVE INC: $2,939,319 over 2y, 64% of budgetCITIESRISE INC: $836,364 over 1y, 26% of budgetBUSINESS FOR HEALTH SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INC: $799,771 over 3y, 78% of budgetISF ADVISORS INC: $424,817 over 2y, 11% of budgetALLIANCE FOR GLOBAL WATER ADAPTATION INC: $343,213 over 2y, 28% of budgetCOLIBRI CATALYST INC: $286,573 over 2y, 100% of budgetGDI-SOLUTIONS INC: $253,442 over 2y, 16% of budgetACUMEN FUND INC: $114,788 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetWOMEN OF THE WORLD ENDOWMENT INC: $76,313 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetREFUGEE INVESTMENT NETWORK INC: $53,200 over 2y, 9.3% of budgetYOUTH FORWARD: $10,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetSacramento LGBT Community Center: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWAKING THE VILLAGE: $7,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRed Eagle Soaring: $5,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetIMPROVE YOUR TOMORROW INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRVC SEATTLE: $5,000 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO3.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 Global Development Incubator Inc?

    Find your warmest path to The Global Development Incubator Inc 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 18 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 Global Development Incubator’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