· Public charity
American Board of Trial Advocates - Chapters
To foster 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 clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $209,700 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $530,761 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $321,061 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.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $16k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $33k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $161k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Foundation of the American Board of Trial Advocates | $161,200 |
| Civics Learning Project | $12,500 |
| Civic Learning Council | $10,000 |
| University of Wisconsin Foundation | $10,000 |
| East Texas Chapter of ABOTA | $8,500 |
| Marquette University Law School | $7,500 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 94% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +36% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 2 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, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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 Advocates6× · 2019–2024 · $624k · revenue +32%
- LMLOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY3× · 2017–2019 · $123k · revenue +68%
- ABAmerican Board of Trial Advocates3× · 2019–2022 · $111k · revenue +26%
Funded once
- MJMilwaukee Justice Centerone grant, 2022 · $25k
- MBMILWAUKEE BAR ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION INCgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $20k · revenue +495%
- AMARKANSAS MOCK TRIAL FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2022 · $15k
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.
The Foundation solicits charitable contributions and provides funding to enhance the rule of law and the system of justice in Texas, especially for programs that relate to the administration of justice; ethics in the legal profession;…
The purposes of the arkansas bar association include the following: advance the administration of justice; foster and maintain on the part of attorneys high ideals of integrity, learning, competence and public service, and high standards…
The american bar foundation (abf) seeks to expand knowledge and advance justice through innovative, interdisciplinary, and rigorous empirical research on law, legal processes, and legal institutions. to further this mission the abf…
The minnesota state bar foundation mobilizes legal community philanthropy to achieve access to justice for all minnesotans.
Mitchell hamline school of law is an independent law school that advances its mission through a combination of legal education, public service, and community engagement. it is dedicated to preparing students to practice law, while also…
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 provide civil legal services to the poor, to improve the administration of justice; and to promote other programs for the benefit of the public as are approved by the supreme court of missouri.
The oklahoma bar foundation provides annual funding through grants to promote the advancement of justice, to provide critical civil legal services to those in need, and to increase public awareness and understanding of the american legal…
The mission of the Law School Foundation is the development, management, and enhancement of the financial and administrative resources which support the University of Texas School of Law.
The mission of the louisiana state bar association is to assist its members in the practice of law, assure access to and aid in the administration of justice, assist the supreme court in the regulation of the practice of law, uphold the…
Minnesota state bar association promotes the highest standards of excellence and inclusion within the legal profession, provides valued resources to its members, and strives to improve the law and the equal administration of justice for…
Higher education: Albany Law School is an institution of higher education that provides instructional and educational activities singularly focused on the study of law. Completion of the programs by students culminates in the awarding of…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Milwaukee Bar Association Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Arkansas Mock Trial Foundation Inc. 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.
22 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. 22 of the 30 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 Board of Trial Advocates ↗
- Who funds Civics Learning Project ↗
- Who funds Marquette University ↗
- Who funds MILWAUKEE BAR ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ARKANSAS MOCK TRIAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds The Foundation of the Federal Bar Association ↗
- Who funds TEX-ABOTA LEGISLATIVE AND EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds KEEP KANSAS COURTS IMPARTIAL INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Albie Aware Inc ↗
- Who funds San Joaquin College of Law ↗
- Who funds TEXAS TECH LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Texas Access to Justice Foundation ↗
- Who funds St Mary's University ↗
- Who funds MONTANA JUSTICE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS FOR WOMEN AND JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds HARVESTERS - THE COMMUNITY FOOD NETWORK ↗
- Who funds The Florida State University Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds Teach Democracy ↗
- Who funds STATE BAR OF SOUTH DAKOTA ↗
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: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 American Board of Trial Advocates - Chapters 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.
- Partners for Women and Justice Inc — 26% 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.