Skip to content
Together for Girls at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Together for Girls

We envision a world where every child, adolescent and young person is safe, protected and thriving.

$1.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$193k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

International$1.1MArts & Culture$233kScience & Tech$120kHealth$98kCrime & Legal$72kEducation$71kHuman Services$65kPhilanthropy$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $455,021, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,069,378 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $614,357 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 · $34k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $421k
$55,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$4.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNICEF USA$193,030
GEORGIA STATE UNIV RESEARCH FDN INC$120,000
A BREEZE OF HOPE FOUNDATION$55,000
R A SHILLING LITERARY WORKS LLC$53,350
NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE CTRS FOR DISEASE CONTR & PREVENTION INC$33,641
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 (FY22–24, $65k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%A BREEZE OF HOPE FOUNDATION: $55k → 10%A Breeze of Hope: $10k → 10%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

WA
IL
MI
NY
PA
CA
DC
GA

Grants abroad, by region: $571k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions, $402k to organizations and $169k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$249k · 44% · 1 grant · 7 people

Stated purpose: SUBGRANT · HONORARIA

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$168k · 29% · 1 grant · 16 people

Stated purpose: SUBGRANT · HONORARIA

North America (Canada and Mexico)$108k · 19% · 1 grant · 2 people

Stated purpose: SUBGRANT · HONORARIA

South Asia$31k · 5% · 5 people

Stated purpose: HONORARIA

East Asia and the Pacific$16k · 3% · 2 people

Stated purpose: HONORARIA

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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 5 repeat orgs$360k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +25% since the first grant, against -8% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
6

Total granted

$1.5M
$187k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+25%
-8%

Still filing today

100%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $173k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationInternationalPhilanthropyArts & CultureCrime & LegalHuman 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

  • UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF
    3× · 2019–2021 · $747k · revenue +55%
  • AB
    A BREEZE OF HOPE FOUNDATION
    2× · 2022–2024 · $65k · revenue +173%
  • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2019–2020 · $46k · revenue +25%

Funded once

  • CH
    CHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE IS A LEGAL DUTY USA
    one grant, 2022 · $72k · revenue -8%
  • TF
    The Fuller Project
    one grant, 2019 · $50k
  • NY
    New York University CIC
    one grant, 2019 · $25k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 13 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $746,938 · InternationalUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEFUNICEF USA Impact Fund for Children Inc: $339,697 · PhilanthropyUNICEF USA Impact Fun…NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION INC: $257,071 · Arts & CultureNATIONAL FOUNDAT…R A SHILLING LITERARY WORKS LLC: $53,350 · OtherR A SHILLI…The Fuller Project: $50,000 · OtherThe Fuller…New York University CIC: $25,000 · OtherNew York U…R A Shilling Literary Works L: $20,000 · OtherR A Shilli…EDJA FOUNDATION: $10,000 · OtherEDJA FOUND…WORLD VISION INTERNATIONAL: $10,000 · OtherWORLD VISI…GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $120,000 · EducationGEORGIA ST…JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $46,000 · EducationJOHNS HOPK…CHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE IS A LEGAL DUTY USA: $72,000 · Crime & LegalA BREEZE OF HOPE FOUNDATION: $65,000 · Human Services
International$746,938Philanthropy$339,697Arts & Culture$257,071Other$168,350Education$166,000Crime & Legal$72,000Human Services$65,000

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 budgetUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $746,938 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetUNICEF USA Impact Fund for Children Inc: $339,697 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION INC: $257,071 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetGEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $120,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE IS A LEGAL DUTY USA: $72,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetA BREEZE OF HOPE FOUNDATION: $65,000 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $46,000 over 2y, 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.

Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Network for GoodDC9.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Network for Good · 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 Together for Girls funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Together for Girls. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
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 13 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 Together for Girls’ 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