· Public charity
American Board of Trial Advocates
The American Board of Trial Advocates fosters improvement in the ethical and technical standards of practice in the field of advocacy for individuals in the civil justice system.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $41k
- $250k+1 grant · $414k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Foundation of the American Board of Trial Advocates | $413,829 |
| Foundation of the American Board of Trial Advocates | $15,000 |
| Loyola Law School | $15,000 |
| American Bar Association - TIPS Trial Academy | $11,400 |
| Council of Chief Judges of the State Court of Appeals | $5,000 |
| The National Judicial College | $5,000 |
| Duke University | $5,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 97% of your 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.
5 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 2 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; $10k 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
- FOFoundation of the American Board of Trial Advocates5× · 2020–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +15% · 29% of their budget
- LMLOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY5× · 2019–2024 · $75k · revenue +41%
- ABAmerican Bar Association3× · 2021–2024 · $34k · revenue +92%
Funded once
- NCNATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTSgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +89%
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIESone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +4%- ABAMERICAN BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCATESone grant, 2020 · $8k
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 advance the science of jurisprudence, secure the more efficient administration of justice, encourage the adoption of proper legislation, advocate thorough and continuing legal education, uphold the honor and integrity of the bar,…
To advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.
The north carolina bar association is organized for the purposes of promoting and improving the administration of justice in north carolina; fostering and encouraging law reform when in the public interest; advancing the science of…
The ohio state bar association (the "association") is an unincorporated voluntary non-profit organization. the association was formed to promote justice and advance the interests of the legal profession.
Enhance the ability of actec members to provide the most efficient and highest quality services to their clients; develop qualified trust and estate counselors; improve and reform probate, trust and tax laws, procedures, and standards of…
To make distributions to 501(c)(3) organizations including, in pact, to advance legal study and research and to promote the administration of justice and uniformity of judicial decision throughout the u.s.
To promote justice, its administration, and its availability to all sectors of society; to support and assist the membership in the delivery of legal services; to uphold the honor and dignity of the bar, and foster respect for the legal…
The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Council for court excellence's (cce's) mission is to bring people together to conduct research, educate, and advocate to make d.c.'s unique legal systems more just, equitable, and accountable to the community.
The national college of advocacy (nca) is the major program of the aaj education fund. the nca shall be the educational arm of aaj; shall be responsible for all aaj educational programs; and shall establish the education policy of aaj. nca…
Empowering college admission counseling professionals through education, advocacy, and community.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The National Judicial College and the most unlike its peers is Montrose Community Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 13 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 Foundation of the American Board of Trial Advocates ↗
- Who funds LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds American Bar Association ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ↗
- Who funds THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Montrose Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds HAWAII COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COUNCIL OF CHIEF JUDGES OF THE STATE COURTS OF APPEAL ↗
- Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 American Board of Trial Advocates 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.
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.