· Public charity
American Museum of Tort Law
Through educational and interpretive programs, the American Museum of Tort Law seeks to increase public understanding of tort law and the role it plays in the protection of personal freedom, health and safety.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2018.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| The Law Works Inc | $20,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
None of its grants could be placed against low income need for this view.
How this is measured
1 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.
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 2024, 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.
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization American Museum of Tort Law funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from American Museum of Tort Law. Bigger dots raise more.
- Law Works Inc: 44% of income from government
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to American Museum of Tort Law?
Find your warmest path to American Museum of Tort Law 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.
Play a game based on American Museum of Tort Law’s filings →