· Public charity
National Endowment for Democracy
Ned has a singular mission - advancing democracy in support of freedom around the world.
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 78 grants below total $150,332,347 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $296,729,895 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $146,397,548 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 $10k2 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k9 grants · $232k
- $50k–250k48 grants · $6.8M
- $250k+19 grants · $143M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE | $35,410,575 |
| AMERICAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL LABOR SOLIDARITY | $34,259,215 |
| CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE | $33,392,527 |
| NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS | $32,831,250 |
| CHINA DIGITAL TIMES INC | $1,247,154 |
| EYE MEDIA GROUP LLC | $770,000 |
| DIRECTORIO DEMOCRATICO CUBANO INC | $650,004 |
| SCHOLARS AT RISK INC | $585,084 |
| INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE ON RACE EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS | $534,835 |
| PEN AMERICAN CENTER INC | $488,260 |
| FREEDOM HOUSE | $465,719 |
| BUSINESS & HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTRE | $417,492 |
| INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FORUM | $393,332 |
| NETFREEDOM PIONEERS | $384,548 |
| CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE | $348,660 |
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 (FY17–24, $3.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 85% 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 — $148M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions, $148M to organizations and $23k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE & POLITICAL PARTIES · EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION, & CULTURE · PLURALISM
Stated purpose: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE & POLITICAL PARTIES · EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION, & CULTURE · PLURALISM
Stated purpose: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE & POLITICAL PARTIES · EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION, & CULTURE · PLURALISM
Stated purpose: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE & POLITICAL PARTIES · EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION, & CULTURE · PLURALISM
Stated purpose: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE & POLITICAL PARTIES · EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION, & CULTURE · PLURALISM
Stated purpose: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE & POLITICAL PARTIES · EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION, & CULTURE · PLURALISM
Stated purpose: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE & POLITICAL PARTIES · EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION, & CULTURE · PLURALISM
Stated purpose: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE & POLITICAL PARTIES · EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION, & CULTURE · PLURALISM
Stated purpose: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE & POLITICAL PARTIES · EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION, & CULTURE · PLURALISM
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.
109 repeat relationships — 59 still active in FY2024, 50 since wound down; 19 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, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.5M 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
- IRINTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE8× · 2017–2024 · $186M · revenue +129% · 33% of their budget
- NDNATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS8× · 2017–2024 · $181M · revenue +64%
- ACAMERICAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL LABOR SOLIDARITY8× · 2017–2024 · $178M · revenue +150% · 56% of their budget
Funded once
- CRCHINA RIGHTS IN ACTION INCone grant, 2017 · $300k · revenue -12%
- FRFREE RUSSIA FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $253k · revenue ×12 · 50% of their budget
- DIDISINFORMATION INDEX INCone grant, 2023 · $211k · revenue -7%
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.
Research and education of United Nations activities
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…
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…
Research and Education: Human Rights Research Center has a team of international contributors conducting research on various human rights topics. Their publications are used to educate the general public about critical rights issues.
The Guernica Centre for International Justice represents the interests of victims in national and international legal proceedings, putting in place transnational accountability strategies that seek to maximize the protection of victims'…
Civicus is a global alliance of civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society throughout the world.
To offer independent and confidential advice and practical assistance in diplomatic strategy and technique to governments, political groups, international organizations and ngos on diplomatic process and decision-making.
Between 2024 and 2025, the committee on freedom of the press and information, together with its subcommittees on impunity and chapultepecsalta, participated in approximately nine activities. these included a panel discussion entitled…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Institute for War & Peace Reporting-Us and the most unlike its peers is Ahiska Turks Community Center of Ky 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 18 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) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% 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.
160 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 160 of the 184 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 INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL LABOR SOLIDARITY ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INC ↗
- Who funds China Digital Times Inc ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM HOUSE ↗
- Who funds Directorio Democratico Cubano Inc ↗
- Who funds THE PROJECT ON MIDDLE EAST DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE ON RACE EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds SCHOLARS AT RISK INC ↗
- Who funds UYGHUR HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE ↗
- Who funds NETFREEDOM PIONEERS ↗
- Who funds THE INT'L CENTER FOR JOURNALISTS INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FORUM ↗
- Who funds GRUPO INTERNACIONAL PARA LA RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL CORPORATIVA EN CUBA INC ↗
- Who funds EURASIANET INC ↗
- Who funds PEN AMERICAN CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NETWORK OF CHINESE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S LEARNING PARTNERSHIP FOR RIGHTS DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE LTD ↗
- Who funds THE INTERNATIONAL COALITION OF SITES OF CONSCIENCE ↗
- Who funds JAPAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE INC ↗
- Who funds ROBERT F KENNEDY CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds CUBALEX ↗
- Who funds BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTRE ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL TIBET NETWORK ↗
- Who funds STUDENTS FOR A FREE TIBET INC ↗
- Who funds THE RIGHTS PRACTICE US INC ↗
- Who funds CAMPAIGN FOR UYGHURS INC ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN CUBA ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR THE AMERICAS ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR EUROPEAN POLICY ANALYSIS ↗
- Who funds Localization Lab Inc ↗
- Who funds THE POYNTER INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA STUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds Center for a Free Cuba ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR WAR & PEACE REPORTING-US ↗
- Who funds EDITORIAL HYPERMEDIA INC ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM NOW 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: Foundation to Promote Open Society · Open Society Institute · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · The Ford Foundation · Humanity United · Freedom House · Internews Network · National Democratic Institute for International Affairs · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc · New Venture Fund · John D and Catherine T Macarthur 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 National Endowment for Democracy 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.
- Cubanet News Inc — 67% of income from government
- Mas Voces Foundation Inc — 51% of income from government
- Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba — 29% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Third Sector New England Inc — 3% of income from government
- The Poynter Institute for Media Studies Inc — 1% 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.