· Public charity
National Harm Reduction Coalition
NATIONAL HARM REDUCTION COALITION is a national capacity building and advocacy organization that promotes the health and dignity of individuals and communities impacted by drug use.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 7 grants below total $49,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $187,256 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $138,256 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 |
|---|---|
| WECARE TN | $7,000 |
| METRO LOUISVILLE HARM REDUCTION TASK FORCE | $7,000 |
| TENNESSEE RECOVERY ALLIANCE | $7,000 |
| POSITIVELY LIVING INC | $7,000 |
| INDIANA RECOVERY ALLIANCE | $7,000 |
| COMMUNITY SHARES INC (NEXT STEP INITIATIVES) | $7,000 |
| SISTERREACH | $7,000 |
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 (FY18–24, $2.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 76% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +112% since the first grant, against +53% for the ones you funded once.
67 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 60 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
DAVE PURCHASE PROJECT4× · 2019–2023 · $973k · revenue +178%- HRHARM REDUCTION SERVICES INC4× · 2020–2023 · $601k · revenue +92%
- HRHarm Reduction Coalition of San Diego - HRCSD On Point Inc4× · 2020–2023 · $565k · revenue ×33 · 27% of their budget
Funded once
- GSGREEN STREET UNITED METHODIST CHURCHone grant, 2019 · $269k
- NNASENone grant, 2022 · $155k
- SFSan Francisco Drug Users Union DBA Health Initiatives forthe Tenderloingraduatedone grant, 2020 · $150k · revenue +26% · 51% of their budget
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.
To provide harm reduction without judgement to reduce the negative consequences of drug use and promote wellness.
Northern Valley Harm Reduction Coalition is a 501c3 Non-Profit and Physician Lead Harm Reduction Program. Our program provides life saving Naloxone, Overdose Reversal Training, Safe Use Supplies, Syringe Disposal, HIV/HCV Testing, Drug…
Reducing harm, saving lives, building community.
Haart is a non-profit organization dedicated to serving the community by reducing the harmful effects of opiate and opioid abuse and dependence, and opiate combined with poly-substance abuse, on individuals and their families. haart's…
To seek justice through health and housing.
Consulting and technical assistance and provide street outreach with food, hygiene and referrals for health care and drug treatment services. also, an aids organization, providing education and technical assistance in prevention, testing,…
Aids service center of lower manhattan, inc., d/b/a alliance for positive change ("alliance") is a not-for-profit community organization founded in 1990 with a central mission of helping low-income new yorkers living with hiv and other…
Alianza's mission is to empower hard-to-reach, vulnerable, and underserved populations through education and supportive services aimed at working with everyone we serve to achieve better outcomes and higher quality of life.
The mission of prevention point philadelphia is to promote health, empowerment and safety for communities affected by drug use and poverty. we are a multi-service public health organization dedicated to reducing the harm associated with…
Harm Reduction Therapy Center is dedicated to providing treatment to people with co-occurring substance misuse and mental illness, and training mental health, drug treatment, and social service providers who work with complex…
Aids community resources, inc. d/b/a acr health, is a community-based organization providing prevention, education, and support services to people with chronic illnesses, including hiv/aids, and those at risk for contracting hiv, stds, and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Being Alive People With Aids Action Coal and the most unlike its peers is Needle Exchange Emergencydistribution. 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 22 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
69 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. 69 of the 90 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 DAVE PURCHASE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds HARM REDUCTION SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds Harm Reduction Coalition of San Diego - HRCSD On Point Inc ↗
- Who funds HIV Education & Prevention Project Of Alameda County ↗
- Who funds HUMBOLDT AREA CENTER FOR HARM REDUCTION ↗
- Who funds THE SIDEWALK PROJECT ↗
- Who funds NEXT HARM REDUCTION INC ↗
- Who funds GENDER HEALTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds INLAND EMPIRE HARM REDUCTION ↗
- Who funds SAFER ALTERNATIVES THROUGH NETWORKING AND EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds Virginia Harm Reduction Coalition ↗
- Who funds Homeless Youth Alliance ↗
- Who funds Wecaretn ↗
- Who funds Homeless Health Care Los Angeles ↗
- Who funds Tennessee Recovery Alliance ↗
- Who funds GLIDE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds METRO LOUISVILLE HARM REDUCTION TASK FORCE ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICAN DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds NC Survivors Union Inc ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY SHARES INC ↗
- Who funds MCAVHN CARE AND PREVENTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds NORTH CAROLINA HARM REDUCTION COALITION ↗
- Who funds ANY POSITIVE CHANGE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds NEEDLE EXCHANGE EMERGENCYDISTRIBUTION ↗
- Who funds BIENESTAR HUMAN SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO AIDS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds STREET WORKS INC ↗
- Who funds IMANI AND UNIDAD ↗
- Who funds SIERRA HARM REDUCTION COALITION ↗
- Who funds Access Support Network ↗
- Who funds FACE TO FACE SONOMA COUNTY AIDS NETWORK ↗
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: AIDS United · National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directorsdba Nastad · Direct Relief · Broadway Caresequity Fights AIDS Inc · Elton John AIDS Foundation Inc · The Chicago Community Trust · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Emory University · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Vital Strategies Inc · Public Health Institute · Solidago 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 Harm Reduction Coalition 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.
- Connecticut Harm Reduction Alliance Inc — 43% 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.