Skip to content
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Inc

To promote the enactment and enforcement of effective civil and human rights legislation and policy.

$15k
Granted FY2023
1
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2023.

Civil Rights$626kPublic Benefit$170k
02FY2023 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK INC$15,000
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 (FY20–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT: $10k → 11%WE THE PEOPLE PENNSYLVANIA ACTION: $17k → 12%NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK INC: $15k → 17%ALL VOTING IS LOCAL ACTION: $591k → 14%ISSUE ONE ACTION: $100k → 14%ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE ACTION CAMPAIGN: $10k → 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.
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.
03Its 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
All Voting Is Local

All voting is local (avl) focuses its nonpartisan programming in three core ways: 1) fighting voter suppression against american citizens and opening up pathways to registration and voting - at every turn and for eligible voters; 2)…

Civil Rights
2
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona

The american civil liberties union of arizona is the state's premier guardian of liberty working through the arizona legislature and communities statewide to defend and preserve individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to all by the…

—
3
Alliance for Justice

Alliance for justice builds the strength of progressive movements by training and educating nonprofit organizations on advocacy, while harnessing their collective power to transform our state and federal courts.

Civil Rights
4
Arizona Advocacy Network

The arizona advocacy network secures electoral justice, political rights, and full civic participation especially for the underrepresented and marginalized constituencies, to achieve government for the people, not corporations.

Civil Rights
5
Arizona Wins

Az wins is a coalition of organizations dedicated to achieving public policies that benefit working arizona families and advancing an inclusive, engaged, just and equitable state for all arizonans. in 2024 az wins substantially reduced its…

Civil Rights
6
La Voice Action

La voice action's mission is to build multi-racial, interfaith power to win policies that transforms los angeles into a county that reflects the human dignity of all people, with racial equity and abundance for all.

Civil Rights
7
All Americans Vote

All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!

Civil Rights
8
Aclu California Action

See schedule oaclu california action advocates for the defense and advancement of civil liberties and civil rights in the california state capitol. we work to secure greater equality, equity, justice, and freedom for all californians. our…

Civil Rights
9
Ballot Pa Action

Informed and educated the public and lawmakers about the benefits of including independent voters in Pennsylvania's primary elections.

Civil Rights
10
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
11
People's Independent Commission

Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay

—
12
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska Foundation

The aclu of alaska is a non-partisan organization dedicated to advancing the cause of civil liberties in alaska through public education and legal action.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is All Voting Is Local Action; the most unlike its peers is We the People Pennsylvania Action. 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

8 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.

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

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ALL VOTING IS LOCAL ACTION: $591,343 · Civil RightsALL VOTING IS LOCAL ACTION+2 more: $19,600 · Civil RightsISSUE ONE ACTION: $100,000 · OtherISSUE ONE ACTIONVOTO LATINO INC: $25,000 · OtherVOTO LATINO INCWe The People Pennsylvania Action: $17,000 · OtherWe The People Pennsy…Civic Engagement Beyond Voting: $27,500 · Public BenefitNATIONAL ACTION NETWORK INC: $15,000 · Public Benefit
Civil Rights$610,943Other$142,000Public Benefit$42,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetALL VOTING IS LOCAL ACTION: $591,343 over 1y, 39% of budgetISSUE ONE ACTION: $100,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetCivic Engagement Beyond Voting: $27,500 over 1y, 20% of budgetVOTO LATINO INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNATIONAL ACTION NETWORK INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE ACTION CAMPAIGN: $10,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT: $9,600 over 1y, 0.1% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Sixteen Thirty Fund
Sixteen Thirty FundDC15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund

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 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.

    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 8 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights’ 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