· Public charity
Human Rights Foundation Inc
The foundation's purpose is to unite people regardless of their political, cultural, and ideological orientations in the common cause of defending human rights and promoting liberal democracy globally.
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 19 grants below total $746,868 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $20,117,302 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $19,370,434 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 $10k1 grant · $10k
- $10k–50k15 grants · $302k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $435k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PMART CONSULTANCY INC | $200,000 |
| HUMANO Y LIBRE FOUNDATION | $179,722 |
| CITIZEN POWER INITIATIVES FOR CHINA | $55,000 |
| STUDENTS FOR A FREE TIBET INC | $35,000 |
| VOCES DE LA MEMORIA INC | $30,000 |
| IDEAS BEYOND BORDERS | $30,000 |
| LIBRERIA DE SATOSHI INC | $25,000 |
| BITSHALA LLC | $25,000 |
| RUSSIAN AMERICA FOR DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA INC | $20,000 |
| CADAL FOUNDATION INC | $20,000 |
| NORTH BEE LLC | $20,000 |
| HONG KONG DEMOCRACY COUNCIL | $20,000 |
| SUMA FOUNDATION INC | $19,651 |
| CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF ORGANIZED HATE INC | $17,500 |
| TRAUMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 94% of your 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 — $13M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions, $9.3M to organizations and $4.1M to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: BITCOIN DEVELOPMENT FUND · BITCOIN BOUNTY PROGRAM · FINANCIAL FREEDOM
Stated purpose: UKRAINE SOLIDARITY FUND · BELARUS SOLIDARITY FUND · FREEDOM FELLOWSHIP
Stated purpose: BITCOIN DEVELOPMENT FUND AND LONG TERM ACTIVIST SUPPORT · BITCOIN DEVELOPMENT FUND · LONG TERM ACTIVIST SUPPORT
Stated purpose: BITCOIN DEVELOPMENT FUND · ART IN PROTEST · FREEDOM FELLOWSHIP
Stated purpose: BITCOIN DEVELOPMENT FUND · FREEDOM FELLOWSHIP · MICROGRANTS
Stated purpose: LONG TERM ACTIVIST SUPPORT · FREEDOM FELLOWSHIP · HAVEL PRIZE
Stated purpose: BITCOIN DEVELOPMENT FUND · CCP DISRUPTION INITIATIVE · KOREA DESK
Stated purpose: BITCOIN DEVELOPMENT FUND · MICROGRANTS · LONG TERM ACTIVIST SUPPORT
Stated purpose: BITCOIN DEVELOPMENT FUND · MICROGRANT · FINANCIAL FREEDOM
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 15% of Human Rights Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 17 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, 8% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $687k 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
- VIVENEZUELA IN ACTION INC2× · 2019–2020 · $1.2M · revenue -54% · 56% of their budget
- TCTOGOLESE CIVIL LEAGUE3× · 2021–2023 · $102k
- FAFree Africa Foundation3× · 2020–2022 · $80k
Funded once
WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INCone grant, 2020 · $600k · revenue +21%- WLWORLD LIBERTY CONGRESS INCone grant, 2023 · $550k · 36% of their budget
- RSREVIVE SOUTH SUDAN GRANTone grant, 2023 · $150k
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.
Promote freedom of information, freedom of expression and freedom of publication in China. Promote freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law and constitutional government in China.
Research and education of United Nations activities
Reporters Without Borders is an organization defending freedom of the press and denouncing attacks on the right to inform and to be informed.
To break the block of information for people in china
The Institute for New Global Politics is a California-based educational nonprofit corporation organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes. It is an independent and nonpartisan thinktank dedicated to educating the general…
Human rights in china, founded by chinese students and scholars in march 1989, is an international, chinese, nongovernmental organization with a mission to promote international human rights and advance the institutional protection of…
Conveying factual, accurate, unbiased, first hand information about ukraine to policymakers and the public at large
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is World Liberty Congress Inc and the most unlike its peers is Citizen Power Initiatives for China 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 6 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 35% of your grantees by number, and just 23% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% 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.
36 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. 36 of the 39 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 VENEZUELA IN ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD LIBERTY CONGRESS INC ↗
- Who funds HUMANO Y LIBRE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Voces de la Memoria INC ↗
- Who funds Ideas Beyond Borders Inc ↗
- Who funds CITIZEN POWER INITIATIVES FOR CHINA INC ↗
- Who funds FREE RUSSIA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds STUDENTS FOR A FREE TIBET INC ↗
- Who funds MOTHER NATURE CAMBODIA INC ↗
- Who funds UN MUNDO SIN MORDAZA ↗
- Who funds Russian America for Democracy in Russia Inc ↗
- Who funds HONG KONG DEMOCRACY COUNCIL USA ↗
- Who funds Code to Inspire Inc ↗
- Who funds CADAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Center For The Study Of Organized Hate Inc ↗
- Who funds NO CHAIN ↗
- Who funds CORE COMMUNITY ORGANIZED RELIEF EFFORT ↗
- Who funds BITCOIN POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds BEIT EL BARAKA USA ↗
- Who funds TRAUMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds RENEGADE RELIEF FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds INHB CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM HOUSE ↗
- Who funds STAND WITH HONG KONG ACTION 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: National Endowment for Democracy · Open Sats Initiative Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Human Rights Foundation 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Human Rights Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Human Rights Foundation Inc 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.