Skip to content
The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience

The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience (ICSC) harnesses the transformative power of collective memory to dismantle violence and injustice, paving the way for more equitable and peaceful communities.

$2.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
11
States reached
$387k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

International$11MArts & Culture$1.1MCrime & Legal$967kHealth$188kCivil Rights$22kEducation$15kFood & Nutrition$12kHuman Services$7kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $549,452, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,115,761 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,566,309 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $90k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $63k
  • $250k+1 grant · $387k
$10,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Center For Victims Of Torture$387,419
Project Expedite Justice (PEJ)$63,033
Chinese Historical Society of America$10,000
Illinois State Museum$10,000
Friends of Sheldon Jackson Museum$10,000
John Dickinson Plantation$10,000
Hermann-Grima & Gallier Historic Houses$10,000
Friends of Elisabet Ney Museum$10,000
The Catoctin Furnace Historical Society Inc$10,000
The Historical Museum at Fort Missoula$10,000
Michigan History Center$10,000
Michigan State University$9,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%JOHN DICKINSON PLANTATION: $10k → 11%HOUSE OF THE SEVEN GABLES: $10k → 10%BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL INC: $188k → 16%WASSMUTH CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: $10k → 8%Center For Victims Of Torture: $387k → 14%THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM AT FORT MISSOULA: $10k → 9%ARCH STREET MEETING HOUSE PRESERVATION TRUST: $15k → 22%CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: $183k → 10%SANTA BARBARA TRUST: $10k → 14%PROJECT EXPEDITE JUSTICE: $718k → 15%GISA INC: $152k → 17%FRIENDS OF ELISABET NEY MUSEUM: $10k → 10%JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN CENTER: $10k → 15%AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION RULE OF LAW INITIATIVE: $286k → 14%MICHIGAN HISTORY CENTER: $10k → 16%CONNECTICUT LANDMARKS: $10k → 11%FRIENDS OF SHELDON JACKSON MUSEUM: $10k → 8%ILLINOIS STATE MUSEUM: $10k → 11%HERMANN-GRIMA & GALLIER HISTORIC HOUSES: $10k → 23%The Catoctin Furnace Historical Society Inc: $10k → 6%JOHN DICKINSON PLANTATION: $10k → 11%CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE: $309k → 14%The Historical Museum at Fort Missoula: $10k → 9%CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: $61k → 10%PROJECT EXPEDITE JUSTICE: $246k → 15%GISA INC: $137k → 17%FRIENDS OF ELISABET NEY MUSEUM: $10k → 10%DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOUNDATION: $164k → 14%CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE: $191k → 14%PROJECT EXPEDITE JUSTICE: $234k → 15%GISA INC: $102k → 17%ABA ROLI: $77k → 14%PROJECT EXPIDITE JUSTICE: $121k → 15%DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOUNDATION: $74k → 14%PROJECT EXPIDITE JUSTICE: $63k → 15%PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY GROUP: $1.9M → 14%Project Expedite Justice (PEJ): $63k → 15%AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION RULE OF LAW INITIATIVE: $45k → 14%PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY GROUP: $1.9M → 14%AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION RULE OF LAW INITIATIVE: $31k → 14%PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY GROUP: $1.3M → 14%AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION RULE OF LAW INITIATIVE: $29k → 14%PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY GROUP: $1.3M → 14%DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY GROUP: $951k → 14%DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOUNDATION: $23k → 14%PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY GROUP: $756k → 14%PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY GROUP: $429k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

AK
ID
MT
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OH
PA
CT
CA
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NC
DC
HI
OK
LA
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $1.5M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$838k · 55% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Financial Support

South Asia$362k · 24% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Financial Support

East Asia and the Pacific$204k · 13% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Financial Support

Sub-Saharan Africa$83k · 5% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Financial Support

Middle East and North Africa$32k · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Financial Support

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$13M · 21 repeat orgs$308k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +26% since the first grant, against +15% for those funded once.

21 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
16

Total granted

$13M
$299k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+26%
+15%

Still filing today

90%
69%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Arts & CultureInternationalCrime & LegalCivil RightsPhilanthropyFood & NutritionOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • PE
    PROJECT EXPEDITE JUSTICE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +868%
  • AB
    American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education
    5× · 2018–2023 · $467k · revenue +37%
  • GI
    GISA INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $391k · revenue +114%

Funded once

  • MG
    MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED
    one grant, 2024 · $188k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
  • WC
    WASSMUTH CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS HOME OF THE ANNE FRANK MEMORIALgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +103%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Society of Architectural Historians

The mission of the society is to advance the knowledge and understanding of architecture, design, landscape and urbanism worldwide among scholars, professionals in allied fields (including architecture, historic preservation and planning)…

Arts & Culture
2
Tudor Place Foundation Inc

Tudor place historic house & garden preserves the stories of six generations of descendants of martha washington and the enslaved and free people who lived and worked at this georgetown landmark for nearly two centuries. by examining their…

—
3
Science Museum of Minnesota

The museum's mission statement is "turn on the science: inspire learning. inform policy. improve lives."

Arts & Culture
4
The South Carolina Historical Society

The schs mission is to expand, preserve, and make accessible our invaluable collection, and to encourage interest and pride in the rich history of our state.

Arts & Culture
5
Chicago Historical Society

The Chicago History Museum strives to be a destination for learning, inspiration, and civic engagement. Through dynamic exhibitions, tours, programs, digital resources, and special events, the Museum connects people to Chicago's history…

Arts & Culture
6
American Civil War Museum Collection

The mission of the american civil war museum collection is to serve as the preeminent world center for the display, study, interpretation, commemoration, and preservation of the history and artifacts of the confederate states of america.

Arts & Culture
7
United States Capitol Historical Society

Today, with the formal approval of congress, the society continues exploring and instituting new and creative ways to bring the fascinating story of the capitol, its institutions and america's unique history to people across the nation and…

Arts & Culture
8
Historic Salem Inc

Historic salem's mission is to ensure that the historic resources of salem, ma which are the key to its identity, its quality of life and its economic vitality, are preserved for future generations and that new development complements the…

—
9
Montauk Historical Society

The purpose of the montauk historical society is to collect, restore, preserve and display historically significant buildings, objects and writings and to preserve and share the history and cultures of montauk and the east end for this and…

Arts & Culture
10
United States National Committee of the Intl Council On Monum & Sites

Us/icomos, u.s. national committee on monuments and sites, promotes the conservation of world heritage and stronger connections to the global heritage community through advocacy, education, and the international exchange of people and…

Arts & Culture
11
The Central European University

Ceu is committed to promoting the values of open society and self-reflective critical thinking. it aims at excellence in the mastery of established knowledge, courage to pursue the creation of new knowledge in the humanities, the social…

International
12
Maine Historical Society

Maine Historical Society, founded in 1822, is a private non-profit whose mission is to preserve and share Maine's story. Based in Portland, we work closely with communities and partners throughout the state, and serve a statewide and…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Filoli Center; the most unlike its peers is Friends of the Historical Museum At Fort Missoula. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

31 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 31 of the 39 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
31/31
Grantees still filing
18/31
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY GROUP: $8,514,806 · InternationalPUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY GROUPPROJECT EXPEDITE JUSTICE: $1,445,430 · InternationalPROJECT EXPEDITE JUSTICETHE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE: $887,419 · InternationalTHE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTUREGISA INC: $390,682 · InternationalAmerican Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education: $467,350 · Crime & LegalCENTER FOR JUSTICE & ACCOUNTABILITY: $244,133 · Crime & LegalTHE DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOUNDATION: $293,074 · Arts & CultureTHE WOMAN'S EXCHANGE DBA HERMANN-GRIMA GALLIER HISTORIC HOUSE: $30,000 · Arts & CultureILLINOIS STATE MUSEUM SOCIETY: $30,000 · Arts & CultureFRIENDS OF SHELDON JACKSON MUSEUM: $30,000 · Arts & CultureCHINESE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA: $30,000 · Arts & CultureHistoric Stagville Foundation: $20,000 · Arts & Culture+8 more: $81,000 · Arts & CultureMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $187,719 · OtherCATOCTIN FURNACE HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $36,000 · OtherMICHIGAN DEP OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES: $30,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM AT FORT MISSOULA: $30,000 · OtherSTATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRO: $20,000 · OtherTHE HOUSE OF THE SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION: $13,000 · Other+7 more: $50,000 · OtherArch Street Meeting House Preservation Trust: $23,000 · PhilanthropyAUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF MISSOULA COUNTY: $6,000 · PhilanthropyWASSMUTH CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS HOME OF THE ANNE FRANK MEMORIAL: $10,000 · Civil RightsTHE SOUTHERN DELAWARE ALLIANCE FOR RACIAL JUSTICE: $6,000 · Civil RightsURBAN COMMUNITY AGRI-NOMICS UCAN: $6,000 · Food & Nutrition
International$11,238,337Crime & Legal$711,483Arts & Culture$514,074Other$366,719Philanthropy$49,000Civil Rights$16,000Food & Nutrition$6,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY GROUP: $8,514,806 over 7y, 74% of budgetPROJECT EXPEDITE JUSTICE: $1,445,430 over 6y, 13% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE: $887,419 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetAmerican Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education: $467,350 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetGISA INC: $390,682 over 3y, 13% of budgetTHE DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOUNDATION: $293,074 over 5y, 7.0% of budgetCENTER FOR JUSTICE & ACCOUNTABILITY: $244,133 over 2y, 4.4% of budgetCATOCTIN FURNACE HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $36,000 over 3y, 4.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM AT FORT MISSOULA: $30,000 over 3y, 5.0% of budgetTHE WOMAN'S EXCHANGE DBA HERMANN-GRIMA GALLIER HISTORIC HOUSE: $30,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetILLINOIS STATE MUSEUM SOCIETY: $30,000 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF SHELDON JACKSON MUSEUM: $30,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetCHINESE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA: $30,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetArch Street Meeting House Preservation Trust: $23,000 over 2y, 8.9% of budgetAUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHistoric Stagville Foundation: $20,000 over 3y, 37% of budgetJOHN HOPE FRANKLIN CENTER FOR RECONCILIATION INC: $13,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetSANTA BARBARA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION: $13,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTHE HOUSE OF THE SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION: $13,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetTHE ANTIQUARIAN & LANDMARKS SOCIETY INC: $13,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetWASSMUTH CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS HOME OF THE ANNE FRANK MEMORIAL: $10,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetNATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFILOLI CENTER: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFriends of Harriet Beecher Stowe House: $8,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF VA ANTIQUITIES: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBALTIMORE MUSEUM OF INDUSTRY INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCOLIBRI CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: $7,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetTHE SOUTHERN DELAWARE ALLIANCE FOR RACIAL JUSTICE: $6,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetCOMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED WAY OF MISSOULA COUNTY: $6,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetURBAN COMMUNITY AGRI-NOMICS UCAN: $6,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

National Trust for Hi…Ibm International Fou…The William & Flora H…Silicon Valley Commun…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Network for GoodFidelity Investments …American Online Givin…
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United StatesDC16.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States · Ibm International Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Network for Good · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Baltimore Museum of Industry Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
12report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience?

Find your warmest path to The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience 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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 39 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on International Coalition of Sites of Conscience’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home