Human Rights Campaign Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521481896
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
Location
Washington, D.C., USA
Phone
202.628.4160
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Lesbian, Gay Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$28,627,289
Expenses
$27,843,843
Assets
$38,475,900
Liabilities
$7,448,966

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

46 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLEY ROBINSON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JAMAUL WEBSTER (CHAIR)
  • JULIA ANDERTON (BOARD MEMBER)
  • GWEN BABA (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The HRC Foundation seeks to fundamentally change the way LGBTQ+ people are treated in our everyday lives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Public education, research, and training: the hrc foundation advances lgbtq+ equality through nonpartisan research, public education, and training across schools, workplaces, healthcare, and communities. In fy25, programs addressed safe schools, health and aging, HIV prevention, voting rights and participation, youth engagement, and economic empowerment. Hrcf continued to develop and publicize key equality indices and e-learning tools to strengthen inclusion nationwide.community programs and outreach: hrcf provides education, technical assistance, and resources that foster safe, affirming environments for lgbtq+ people. These programs trained professionals, supported youth and families, and promoted fairness across education, health, and social service systems.workplace and economic equality: hrcf's workplace equality programs advance lgbtq+ inclusion in employment through research, corporate partnerships, and benchmarking tools that were used to help corporations achieve the most effective and inclusive workplaces. Additional programs focused on financial health and workforce readiness for marginalized lgbtq+ adults.health, well-being, and fair access: through initiatives on health access and education, HIV prevention, and aging, hrcf works to reduce disparities and promote accessible, inclusive care. Programs provided education, training, and resources to healthcare providers and communities.youth leadership and well-being: hrcf supported lgbtq+ youth through professional development for educators and youth-serving professionals, national conferences, and leadership programs that equip young advocates to foster inclusion and resilience in their schools and communities.litigation and policy impact: hrcf engages in impact litigation and advocacy to challenge discriminatory laws and advance systemic change. The foundation continued to produce national equality indices to assess legal protections, demonstrate effectiveness of equality programs in municipalities, and collaborate with policymakers and partners to promote inclusive practices nationwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.8%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 65.6%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 63.5%; rating input score 63; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.7%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.38; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 12 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 64.8% of revenue deployed · 65.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $18.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 46 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 45 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.