· Public charity
Fund for Global Human Rights Inc
We are activists and grant-makers working in solidarity with individuals and organizations promoting human rights in their communities.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 17 grants below total $687,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $18,628,692 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $17,941,192 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 · FY2025
- $10k–50k14 grants · $373k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $315k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CONFIDENTIAL (SINGH FOUNDATION) | $165,000 |
| NEW VENTURES FUND | $100,000 |
| VISION MADE VIABLE | $50,000 |
| NEW YORK UNIVERSITY - BERSTEIN INSTITUTE | $45,000 |
| CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION (QDEP) | $45,000 |
| RISE COLLECTIVE | $40,000 |
| PEOPLE'S COURAGE INTERNATIONAL | $37,500 |
| KNOWLEDGE HUB MYANMAR | $35,000 |
| CHIN HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION (CHRO) | $25,000 |
| JUST ASSOCIATES MESOAMERICA | $25,000 |
| CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR WOMEN PRISONERS | $20,000 |
| DEFYING LEGAL GRAVITY | $20,000 |
| WOMEN WHO NEVER GIVE UP | $20,000 |
| HOMEGIRLZ DEL CORAZON | $20,000 |
| JAILHOUSE LAWYERS INITIATIVE LEAH | $20,000 |
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 (FY23–25, $171k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 80% 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
Grants abroad, by region — $18M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 8 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: CDH FRAY MATIAS GRANT FACILITATION PROJECT · MIGRATION & DISPLACEMENT · EDUCATION, RELIGION, & CULTURE
Stated purpose: ACCESS TO JUSTICE/EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW · CIVIC & POLITICAL PARTICIPATION · ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE RIGHTS
Stated purpose: ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE RIGHTS · ACCESS TO JUSTICE/EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW · HUMAN RIGHTS, GENERAL
Stated purpose: ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE RIGHTS · MIGRATION & DISPLACEMENT · ECONOMIC & LABOR RIGHTS
Stated purpose: EXPRESSION & INFORMATION RIGHTS · ACCESS TO JUSTICE/EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW · ECONOMIC & LABOR RIGHTS
Stated purpose: HUMAN RIGHTS, GENERAL · ACCESS TO JUSTICE/EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW · FREEDOM FROM VIOLENCE
Stated purpose: ACCESS TO JUSTICE/EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW · ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE RIGHTS · EXPRESSION & INFORMATION RIGHTS
Stated purpose: ECONOMIC & LABOR RIGHTS · ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE RIGHTS · FREEDOM FROM VIOLENCE
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 +26% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $220k 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
- SFSINGH FAMILY FOUNDATION WASHINGTON4× · 2022–2025 · $501k · revenue +170% · 44% of their budget
- JAJUST ASSOCIATES INC4× · 2021–2025 · $143k · revenue +26%
RIGHT TO THE CITY ALLIANCE4× · 2022–2025 · $140k · revenue +30%
Funded once
- A1ARTICLE 19 INCone grant, 2023 · $92k · revenue 0%
- FOFriends of the Congoone grant, 2024 · $40k · revenue 0%
- IIInternational Indigenous Fund For Development and Solidarity Batanigraduatedone grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue +455%
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.
Ending impunity for conflict related sexual violence
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,…
The international institute on race, equality and human rights contributes to the promotion and defense of human rights, through training, technical assistance, advocacy, and strategic litigation conducted at the regional and international…
Research and education of United Nations activities
To promote and protect human rights in the United States and around the world.
The committee to protect journalists promotes press freedom worldwide and defends the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal. cpj ensures the free flow of news and commentary by taking action wherever…
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Just Associates Inc and the most unlike its peers is Defying Legal Gravity. 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 14 years old; the field is 18. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 13% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
32 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 NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds SINGH FAMILY FOUNDATION WASHINGTON ↗
- Who funds JUST ASSOCIATES INC ↗
- Who funds RIGHT TO THE CITY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE'S COURAGE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION ↗
- Who funds ROBERT F KENNEDY CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds VISIONS MADE VIABLE ↗
- Who funds NAZDEEK INC ↗
- Who funds ARTICLE 19 INC ↗
- Who funds CHIN HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION US ↗
- Who funds RIGHTS ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds New York University ↗
- Who funds Global Rights Advocacy ↗
- Who funds Friends of the Congo ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR LOUISIANA ↗
- Who funds KNOWLEDGE HUB - MYANMAR ↗
- Who funds International Indigenous Fund For Development and Solidarity Batani ↗
- Who funds Harassmap ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY INITIATIVES ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVOCATES OF CA ↗
- Who funds WOMEN WHO NEVER GIVE UP INC ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds DEFYING LEGAL GRAVITY ↗
- Who funds MOCKINGBIRD INCUBATOR ↗
- Who funds ASYLUM ACCESS ↗
- Who funds Network on Women in Prison dba Legal Services for Prisoners w Children ↗
- Who funds Migrant Workers Action ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL SENIOR LAWYERS'CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds BELADY US AN ISLAND FOR HUMANITY ↗
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: Foundation to Promote Open Society · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Tides Foundation · The Ford Foundation · NEO Philanthropy Inc · New Venture Fund · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Endowment 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 Fund for Global Human Rights Inc 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.