Skip to content
Womens Empowerment International at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Womens Empowerment International

Womens Empowerment funds econcomic empowerment programs including small business loans, training, education, and other vital poverty alleviation strategies for women experiencing poverty.

$227k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$43k
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, FY2020 to 2025.

International$300kHuman Services$63kHousing & Shelter$37kEmployment$30kScience & Tech$17kFood & Nutrition$13kPublic Benefit$10k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $90,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $227,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $137,000 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $76k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$182k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
International Rescue Committee San Diego$43,000
Farmer to Farmer$13,000
SDSU Research Foundation$10,000
Tipey Joa Native Warriors$10,000
Rooted Wisdom$8,000
Urban Corps$6,000
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 (FY20–21, $37k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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%Proyecto Matria: $20k → 11%Proyecto Matria Inc: $17k → 11%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: $137k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Central America and the Caribbean$84k · 61% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: Microfinance and training

Sub-Saharan Africa$53k · 39% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: Microfinance and training · Training and Startup Support

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.
$438k · 6 repeat orgs$31k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
3

Total granted

$438k
$31k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
0%

Still filing today

83%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalHuman ServicesEducationEmploymentPublic BenefitOther
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

  • IR
    International Rescue Committee INC
    4× · 2020–2023 · $203k · revenue +63%
  • DF
    DREAMS FOR CHANGE INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $63k · revenue +394%
  • UC
    URBAN CORPS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
    4× · 2022–2025 · $30k · revenue +17%

Funded once

  • FT
    Farmer to Farmer Inc
    one grant, 2025 · $13k · revenue 0%
  • TJ
    Tipey Joa Native Warriors
    one grant, 2025 · $10k
  • RW
    Rooted Wisdom Africa Into Your Hands
    one grant, 2025 · $8k · revenue 0%
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
Womens Empowerment International

Womens Empowerment funds econcomic empowerment programs including small business loans, training, education, and other vital poverty alleviation strategies for women experiencing poverty. More on Schedule O.

International
2
Centro Binacional Para El Desarrollo Indigena Oaxaqueno

Building Indigenous power through collective action to achieve economic, social and cultural development.

International
3
Caminos De Accion

Our Mission: To work in solidarity with Salvadorans to facilitate community organization in order to address locally identified challenges in El Salvador including social, educational and health related issues; Our Vision: Our vision is to…

International
4
Solar Cookers International

The mission of Solar Cookers International is to improve human health, economic well-being, womens empowerment, and the environment by promoting climate-friendly solar cooking for vulnerable populations worldwide.

Environment
5
Rainforest Alliance Holding Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

Environment
6
Center for the study of the Americas

Within the Americas promoting dialogue and research, producing studies and reports, conducting courses and conferences particularly in the areas of agroecology and food security

—
7
Sequoia Farm Foundation
Science & Tech
8
Rainforest Alliance Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

—
9
Rights and Resources Institute Inc

Rri's mission is to support local communities and indigenous peoples' struggles against poverty and marginalization by promoting greater global commitment and action towards policy, market, and legal reforms that secure their rights to…

Environment
10
Floresta Usa Incorporated

Plant with purpose, a christian nonprofit organization, reverses deforestation and poverty around the world by transforming the lives of the rural poor. we do this through: - watershed restoration & regenerative agriculture - savings…

International
11
Puente a la Salud Comunitaria

Puente promotes the cultivation and consumption of amaranth, combined with other traditional and strategic crops, to encourage the diversification of local agriculture and diet for rural communities in Mexico and improve community…

Food & Nutrition
12
Conflict and Development Foundation
International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rooted Wisdom Africa Into Your Hands; the most unlike its peers is International Rescue Committee 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

8 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. 8 of the 9 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

International Rescue Committee INC: $203,200 · InternationalInternational Rescue Committee INCRooted Wisdom Africa Into Your Hands: $8,000 · InternationalInternational Rescue Committee San Diego: $88,500 · OtherInternational Rescue Com…Farmer to Farmer Inc: $13,000 · OtherFarmer to Farmer IncDREAMS FOR CHANGE INC: $62,500 · Human ServicesDREAMS FOR CHANGE INCPROYECTO MATRIA INC: $37,000 · Human ServicesPROYECTO MATRIA INCURBAN CORPS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY: $30,000 · EmploymentSAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION SDSU RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $16,700 · EducationTipey Joa Native Warriors: $10,000 · Public Benefit
International$211,200Other$101,500Human Services$99,500Employment$30,000Education$16,700Public Benefit$10,000

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 budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $203,200 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetDREAMS FOR CHANGE INC: $62,500 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetPROYECTO MATRIA INC: $37,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetURBAN CORPS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY: $30,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION SDSU RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $16,700 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFarmer to Farmer Inc: $13,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetTipey Joa Native Warriors: $10,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetRooted Wisdom Africa Into Your Hands: $8,000 over 1y, 7.4% 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Womens Empowerment International funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Womens Empowerment International. 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 →
    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 9 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Womens Empowerment International’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