· Public charity
End Modern Slavery Initiative Foundation
The Global Fund to End Modern Slavery in an international fund that invests in programs and partnerships across the globe to end human trafficking forced labor and all forms of modern slavery.
Read this first · the figures below need context
62% of End Modern Slavery Initiative Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to The Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 2 grants below total $1,158,948 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,757,062 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $598,114 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Stanford University | $714,113 |
| Survivors Alliance | $444,835 |
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 (FY22–22, $339k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% 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.
Grants abroad, by region — $482k on the FY2024 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.
Stated purpose: To reduce human trafficking and modern slavery related to coffee production and the related supply chain.
Stated purpose: Reduce workers vulnerability to human trafficking via rights education and protection of Bangladeshi migrant construction workers and employers in Malaysia. Reduce Malaysian migrant domestic workers vulnerability to human trafficking.
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. 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +63% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- IJINTERNATIONAL JUSTICE MISSION4× · 2019–2022 · $5.7M · revenue +75%
- SASOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL INC3× · 2020–2022 · $604k · revenue +63%
- RBRESPONSIBLE BUSINESS ALLIANCE2× · 2019–2020 · $155k · revenue +102%
Funded once
- WIWillow International Everfreeone grant, 2022 · $339k · revenue +8%
- NNNOMI NETWORK INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $121k · revenue +40%
- FTFREE THE SLAVESone grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue -9%
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.
The mission of the Fair Labor Association (FLA) is to protect workers' rights and improve working conditions worldwide for more than five million workers in the factories and farms of our affiliates. (see schedule o)
Ending impunity for conflict related sexual violence
To achieve legal and systematic change that addresses violence and discrimination against women and girls around the world.
In recognition of the fundamental principles of the universal declaration of human rights, international bridges to justice (ibj) is dedicated to protecting the basic legal rights of ordinary citizens in developing countries. specifically,…
Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.
To create transnational access to legal assistance for victims of labour exploitation and human trafficking so that they can seek rightful compensation, even after returning home.
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
Our goal is to generate awareness and deploy action for the issues of forced labor, slavery, and human trafficking.
International consortium of investigative journalists, inc.'s (icij) mission is to show people how the world really works through stories that rock the world; forcing positive change.
GoodWeave works to stop child labor in global supply chains. Permanently.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Free the Slaves and the most unlike its peers is The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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.
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 INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE MISSION ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds SURVIVOR ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Willow International Everfree ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN JUDGES ↗
- Who funds RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds NOMI NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds FREE THE SLAVES ↗
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: National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 End Modern Slavery Initiative 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.
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 End Modern Slavery Initiative Foundation?
Find your warmest path to End Modern Slavery Initiative 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.