Skip to content

· Private foundation

World Charity Foundation

Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$22k
Granted FY2026still arriving
8
Grants FY2026still arriving
5
States reached
$5k
Largest
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 2025.

Animals$70kYouth Development$31kHealth$29kCivil Rights$20kInternational$3kHousing & Shelter$2kFood & Nutrition$2kArts & Culture$100
02FY2026 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$250k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Heart Hand Center$4,500
Nepal Tiger Conservancy$4,500
Fund for the Tiger$4,500
ACLU$2,000
Amnesty International USA$2,000
Rocky Mtn Planned Parenthood$2,000
Denver Zoo$1,500
Ehlers-Danlos Society$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 79% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Nepal Tiger Conservancy: $5k → 14%Fund for the Tiger: $5k → 8%Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc: $2k → 17%ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $3k → 12%NEPAL TIGER CONSERVACY: $5k → 14%FUND FOR THE TIGER: $5k → 8%Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc: $2k → 17%ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $3k → 12%Nepal Tiger Conservancy: $4k → 14%FUND FOR THE TIGER: $4k → 8%Doctors Without Borders: $2k → 17%ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $3k → 12%NEPAL TIGER CONSERVACY: $4k → 14%Fund for the Tiger: $4k → 8%Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood: $2k → 12%Nepal Tiger Conservancy: $4k → 14%Fund for the Tiger: $4k → 8%THE EHLERS DANLOS SOCIETY: $3k → 17%Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood: $2k → 12%NEPAL TIGER CONSERVACY: $4k → 14%FUND FOR THE TIGER: $4k → 8%THE EHLERS DANLOS SOCIETY: $3k → 17%Rocky Mtn Planned Parenthood: $2k → 12%Nepal Tiger Conservancy: $4k → 14%Fund for the Tiger: $4k → 8%The Ehlers Danlos Society: $2k → 17%Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood: $2k → 12%Nepal Tiger Conservancy: $4k → 14%Fund for the Tiger: $2k → 8%Heart Hand Center: $5k → 12%Nepal Tiger Conservancy: $3k → 14%Fund for the Tiger: $2k → 8%AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: $3k → 17%HEART AND HAND CENTER: $5k → 12%Nepal Tiger Conservancy: $2k → 14%Fund for the Tiger: $2k → 8%ACLU: $2k → 17%Heart and Hand Center: $4k → 12%AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: $2k → 17%Heart and Hand Center: $4k → 12%AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: $2k → 17%Heart and Hand Center: $4k → 12%HEART AND HAND CENTER: $4k → 12%HEART AND HAND CENTER: $4k → 12%Heart and Hand Center: $2k → 12%Heart and Hand Center: $2k → 12%Heart and Hand Center: $2k → 12%Denver Zoo: $2k → 12%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.
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$172k · 15 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2026, 9 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
1

Total granted

$172k
$100

Still filing today

53%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
AnimalsHealthCrime & LegalInternationalOther
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

  • TF
    THE FUND FOR THE TIGER
    10× · 2017–2026 · $35k · revenue +87%
  • HA
    HEART AND HAND CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $31k · revenue +65%
  • RM
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $15k · revenue +32%

Funded once

  • KM
    Kirckland Museum of Fine & Decoration Art
    one grant, 2017 · $100
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
Panthera Corporation

Panthera's mission is the conservation of the world's 40 wild cat species, many of which are endangered or threatened. panthera develops, implements and oversees wild cat conservation strategies on a global scale.

Animals
2
American Museum of Natural History

The museum's mission statement is: "to discover, interpret, and disseminate - through scientific research and education - knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe."

Arts & Culture
3
International Snow Leopard Trust

The international snow leopard trust aims to ethically conserve snow leopards and their high mountain ecosystems through partnerships with indigenous peoples and local communities, and through research to improve the understanding of snow…

Animals
4
Akashinga Inc

Deliver ecological stability and long-term protection of large-scale wilderness by supporting and empowering local communities.

Animals
5
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
6
Property and Environment Research Center

Perc is dedicated to advancing conservation through markets, incentives, property rights, and partnerships.

Public Benefit
7
Colorado Nature League

To protect, conserve, and restore colorado's native wildlife and habitats. we champion science-based, innovative, collaborative solutions for managing colorado's iconic wildlife and biodiversity, protecting them from threats like habitat…

Environment
8
The Peregrine Fund Inc

To change the future for nature and humanity by conserving birds of prey worldwide.

—
9
American Humane Association

Founded in 1877, american humane association, dba american humane society (american humane) is committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals. our leadership programs are first to serve in promoting and nurturing the…

Animals
10
Environmental Health Sciences

Environmental health sciences provides science-based information on endocrinedisruption and related environmental factors that influence human and environmentalhealth. the organization aggregates news and translates research to make…

Environment
11
Rocky Mountain Wild

Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…

Environment
12
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ehlers-Danlos Society. 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

10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
9/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEPAL TIGER CONSERVANCY: $38,000 · AnimalsNEPAL TIGER CONSERVANCYTHE FUND FOR THE TIGER: $35,000 · AnimalsTHE FUND FOR THE TIGERDENVER ZOOLOGICAL FOUNDATION: $7,100 · AnimalsDENVER ZOOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA: $12,000 · OtherAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL U…AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: $6,400 · OtherAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIE…Heart Hand Center: $4,500 · OtherHeart Hand CenterACLU: $3,000 · OtherACLUAmerical Civil Liberties Union: $3,000 · OtherAmerical Civil Libertie…Individual grant recipient: $2,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipi…Rocky Mtn Planned Parenthood: $2,000 · OtherRocky Mtn Planned Paren…Individual grant recipient: $2,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipi…Individual grant recipient: $1,900 · Other+1 more: $100 · OtherHEART AND HAND CENTER: $30,500 · Crime & LegalHEART AND HAND CENT…ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC: $15,000 · HealthROCKY MOUNTAIN PL…EHLERS-DANLOS SOCIETY: $9,000 · HealthEHLERS-DANLOS SOC…PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $4,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOO…MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $3,000 · International
Animals$80,100Other$36,900Crime & Legal$30,500Health$28,000International$3,000

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 budgetNEPAL TIGER CONSERVANCY: $38,000 over 10y, 7.6% of budgetTHE FUND FOR THE TIGER: $35,000 over 10y, 5.8% of budgetHEART AND HAND CENTER: $30,500 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC: $15,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetEHLERS-DANLOS SOCIETY: $9,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetDENVER ZOOLOGICAL FOUNDATION: $7,100 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $4,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $3,000 over 3y, 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.

  • Who funds NEPAL TIGER CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds THE FUND FOR THE TIGER ↗
  • Who funds HEART AND HAND CENTER ↗
  • Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC ↗
  • Who funds EHLERS-DANLOS SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds DENVER ZOOLOGICAL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗

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 FoundationWA2.7× 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 World Charity Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from World Charity Foundation. 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 World Charity Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to World Charity 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 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on World Charity’s filings →

    More from the funding graph