· Private foundation
Do Right Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 40 grants below total $110,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $127,000 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $17,000 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k39 grants · $100k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HHV-6 FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| WOODSON CENTER | $5,000 |
| PHOENIX SOCIETY FOR BURN SURVIVORS | $5,000 |
| LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE | $5,000 |
| THOMAS MORE SOCIETY | $4,000 |
| C-FAM PROCESSING CENTER | $4,000 |
| CITIZEN JOURNALISM FOUNDATION | $4,000 |
| THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER | $4,000 |
| CENTER FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY | $3,000 |
| NATURAL HIGH/SUNDT MEMORIAL | $3,000 |
| MIDDLE EAST CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE | $3,000 |
| THE GROVE CENTER FOR THE ARTS & MEDIA | $3,000 |
| TRUE THE VOTE INC | $3,000 |
| NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE | $3,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF COMBATANTS FOR PEACE | $3,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $64k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 88% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
64 repeat relationships — 34 still active in FY2024, 30 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- SRSIMMARON RESEARCH INC7× · 2017–2023 · $68k · revenue +51%
- HFHHV-6 FOUNDATION5× · 2017–2024 · $64k · revenue +27%
- PIPUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION2× · 2022–2024 · $43k · revenue +82%
Funded once
- AFAmerica First Legal Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $4k · revenue +401%
- VFVETERANS FOR PEACEone grant, 2017 · $4k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $3k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.
To educate the public on constitutional issues and public policy matters. We are dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and the values embodied in the Declaration of…
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…
First Look Institute supports fearless investigative journalism, innovative and cinematic nonfiction filmmaking, and press freedom initiatives to protect the right to a free and open society and press.
The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…
The lawfare institute is an independent and nonpartisan organization dedicated to the hard choices in national security, law, and policy. we produce academic-quality analysis with magazine-level readability at the pace of news to enable…
The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…
Epic's mission is to secure the fundamental right to privacy in the digital age for all people through advocacy, research, and litigation.
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. Pew Research Center generates a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Judicial Watch Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Swank Ms Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 23 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 6% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
51 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 51 of the 84 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds SIMMARON RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds HHV-6 FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PHOENIX SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds CARIDAD INC ↗
- Who funds Burn Institute ↗
- Who funds THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds The Swank MS Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE FOR AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS INC ↗
- Who funds NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds THE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds RANDOLPH BOURNE INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds WOODSON CENTER ↗
- Who funds Nova Southeastern University Inc ↗
- Who funds USS LIBERTY VETERANS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CAREGIVING YOUTH INC ↗
- Who funds MIDDLE EAST CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PROLIFE ACROSS AMERICA ↗
- Who funds TRUE THE VOTE INC ↗
- Who funds A JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE ↗
- Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds The Breakthrough Institute ↗
- Who funds IF AMERICANS KNEW ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY ↗
- Who funds THOMAS MORE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds KASH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SOLVE ME CFS INITIATIVE INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Donors Trust Inc · Bradley Impact Fund Inc · The Bridget Rose Foundation Inc · John P & Kathryn G Evans Foundation · The Brenneman Family Charitable Foundation Inc · Loeb Family Foundation Inc · Vandevere Charitable Foundation · Sarah Scaife Foundation Incorporated · The Sandra & Lawrence Post Family Foundation · The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc · California Community Foundation · Servant Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Do Right Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Nova Southeastern University Inc — 2% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Do Right Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Do Right 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.