Skip to content
The Nduna Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Nduna Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.4M
Granted FY2019
11
Grants FY2019
7
States reached
$500k
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 2019.

Education$2.7MInternational$1.8MHuman Services$1.3MAnimals$225kReligion$150kEnvironment$60kCivil Rights$50kArts & Culture$15kOther$0
02FY2019 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $85k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $475k
  • $250k+2 grants · $800k
$50,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$21k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PARTNERS IN HEALTH$500,000
THE ELDERS FOUNDATION$300,000
CRISIS ACTION LTD$200,000
THE TRINITY FOUNDATION$150,000
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH$75,000
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN$50,000
THE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION$25,000
THE ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY$20,000
THE INDEPENDENT FEATURE PROJECT INC$15,000
THE WITNESS FOUNDATION$15,000
DIKEMBE MUTOMBO FOUNDATION$10,000
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.

US giving: 80% of grant dollars ($5.1M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 20% that went abroad ($1.3M) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 37% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%EAGLEBROOK SCHOOL: $25k → 14%UPPER SARANAC LAKE FOUNDATION: $10k → 16%HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: $285k → 17%WITNESS: $50k → 20%NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $125k → 14%THE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION: $25k → 15%THE TRINITY FOUNDATION: $150k → 15%RUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $2.6M → 8%SCARLET KNIGHTS WRESTLING CLUB: $10k → 10%TEAM LEGRAND REEVE FOUNDATION: $5k → 16%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $500k → 6%HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: $75k → 17%THE WITNESS FOUNDATION: $15k → 20%FULLERPROJECT FOR INTERNATIONAL REPORTI: $255k → 14%THE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION: $25k → 15%HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: $25k → 17%THE INDEPENDENT FEATURE PROJECT INC: $15k → 20%NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $100k → 14%INTERNATIONAL WOMEN HEALTH COALITION: $31k → 17%THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN: $50k → 14%CRISIS ACTION LTD: $200k → 17%WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL: $11k → 14%CRISIS ACTION LTD: $200k → 17%WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL: $5k → 14%CRISIS ACTION LTD: $200k → 17%THE BATONGA FOUNDATION: $10k → 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

NY
MA
NJ
MD
AZ
TN
DC
GA
FL

Beyond the US: 20% of all-years giving ($1.3M)

1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
United Kingdom$1.3M · 3 grants
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

40%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.6M · 6 repeat orgs$3.8M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +41% since the first grant, against -13% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2019, 2 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
9

Total granted

$2.6M
$3.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+41%
-13%

Still filing today

83%
78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 44% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $760k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
InternationalEducationAnimalsHealthReligionArts & CultureOther
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

  • NF
    NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $225k · revenue +62%
  • THE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $50k · revenue +133%
  • WF
    WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL
    2× · 2017–2018 · $16k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • RUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $2.6M · revenue -13%
  • FP
    FULLER PROJECT FOR INTERNATIONAL REPORTING INC
    one grant, 2018 · $255k · revenue -34%
  • WI
    WITNESS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $50k · revenue +44%
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
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
2
Institute for Eastwest Studies Inc

Eastwest institute (ewi) works to reduce international conflict, addressing seemingly intractable problems that threaten world security and stability. (continued on schedule o)

—
3
International Crisis Group

Crisis group works to prevent and resolve deadly conflict around the world by informing and influencing the perceptions and actions of policymakers and other key conflict actors. to this end, we endeavour to talk to all sides and provide…

International
4
International Women's Forum Inc

The mission of the international women's forum is to advance women's leadership worldwide. iwf takes direct action to achieve our mission in three important ways. connect: our convenings provide networking and cutting-edge content…

Education
5
Direct Action for Women Now World-Wide Inc Formerly Indias Daughters Inc
Philanthropy
6
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
7
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
8
Womens Foreign Policy Group Inc

Founded in 1995 wfpg works to expand the foreign policy dialogue across policital divides and generations and to support women at every stake of their careers. as champions of womens leadership we are proud of our role in expanding the…

International
9
Women in Global Health Inc

Women in global health (wgh) is a global movement and organization that brings together all genders and backgrounds to achieve gender equality in global health leadership.

Public Benefit
10
The Leadership Foundation

The leadership foundation, inc. (the foundation), established in 1990, is the mechanism by which iwf members advance the next generation of women leaders. the foundation accelerates the careers of top-performing women by offering…

—
11
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
12
Women's Rights Without Frontiers International

Women's rights without frontiers, international ("wrwf- or "the organization") is a nonprofit entity supporting the rights of women and girls, first in china, then in other countries' communities. the organization was founded by regina…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is International Center for Research On Women; the most unlike its peers is Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation. 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

18 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. 18 of the 22 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
9/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $2,650,000 · EducationRUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION+2 more: $35,000 · EducationTHE ELDERS FOUNDATION: $1,300,000 · OtherTHE ELDERS FOUNDATION+8 more: $116,300 · Other+8 moreCRISIS ACTION INC: $600,000 · InternationalCRISIS ACTION INCHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC: $385,000 · InternationalHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INCFULLER PROJECT FOR INTERNATIONAL REPORTING INC: $255,000 · InternationalFULLER PROJECT FOR INTER…INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN: $50,000 · InternationalWITNESS INC: $50,000 · International+1 more: $16,000 · InternationalPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $500,000 · HealthNATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $225,000 · AnimalsTRINITY FOUNDATION: $150,000 · ReligionTHE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · Environment
Education$2,685,000Other$1,416,300International$1,356,000Health$500,000Animals$225,000Religion$150,000Environment$50,000

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 budgetRUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $2,650,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetCRISIS ACTION INC: $600,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $500,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC: $385,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetNATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $225,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN: $50,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetWITNESS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetTHE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetINTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S HEALTH COALITION: $31,100 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetALLEN-CHASE FOUNDATION DBA EAGLEBROOK SCHOOL: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL: $16,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetINDEPENDENT FEATURE PROJECT INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSKWC A New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation: $10,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetDMF Internationl Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetBATONGA FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetUPPER SARANAC LAKE FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% 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.

The Ford FoundationThe Skoll FoundationWellspring Philanthro…John D and Catherine …Greater Washington Co…New Venture FundThe Goldman Sachs Cha…National Philanthropi…Jewish Communal FundVanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
The Ford FoundationNY14.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ford Foundation · The Skoll Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Greater Washington Community Foundation · New Venture Fund · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Jewish Communal Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation: 0% of income from government
  • Rutgers University Foundation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
5report 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 22 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2019, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Nduna’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