· Private foundation
Arnold & Porter Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k17 grants · $357k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $758k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LEGAL AID SOCIETY (NY) | $235,500 |
| EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS | $142,500 |
| NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION | $100,000 |
| DELAWARE COMMUNITY LEGAL AID SOCIETY INC | $71,823 |
| FORWARD JUSTICE | $55,200 |
| DC BAR PRO BONO CENTER | $52,250 |
| CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER - DISTRICT MAPS IN WISCONSIN | $51,000 |
| FAIR ELECTION CENTER | $50,000 |
| BRONX DEFENDERS | $42,312 |
| Individual grant recipient | $39,082 |
| NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP | $32,858 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA | $30,000 |
| ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK | $25,057 |
| LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW | $25,000 |
| THE JOHN PAUL STEVENS FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 96% 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 +35% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
21 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 15 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, 34% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $735k 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
- EJEQUAL JUSTICE WORKS8× · 2017–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +33%
- FJFORWARD JUSTICE2× · 2020–2024 · $275k · revenue +68%
- DBDC BAR PRO BONO CENTER5× · 2020–2024 · $275k · revenue +31%
Funded once
- UOUNIVERSITY OF DENVER STRUM COLLEGE OF LAWone grant, 2018 · $687k
- LALEGAL AID SOCIETYone grant, 2020 · $186k
THE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER INCone grant, 2023 · $125k · revenue -35%
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 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…
To advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
Ala is the catalyst for growth by providing: diverse educational experiences, engaged peer communities, strategic solutions, dynamic resources, and trusted networks.
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
The mission of the school is to provide outstanding legal education in a collegial and supportive environment with attention to newly emerging areas of law, particularly those related to technological development, globalization and the…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
The mission of new york law school is to provide its students with knowledge, skills and ethical values needed for a career in law.
The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
New england law/boston dedicates itself to preparing students to be successful lawyers and leaders in the public and private sectors through integrated practical, theoretical and ethical education of the highest caliber and to contributing…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Equal Justice Works and the most unlike its peers is New York University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 44 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
36 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. 36 of the 64 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 EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS ↗
- Who funds A BETTER CHANCE INC ↗
- Who funds FORWARD JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds DC BAR PRO BONO CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL BAR INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds DEMOS A NETWORK FOR IDEAS AND ACTION LTD ↗
- Who funds LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds THE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ADVANCEMENT PROJECT EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds THE TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER ↗
- Who funds Advocates for Children of New York ↗
- Who funds Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law ↗
- Who funds Fair Elections Center ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds The John Paul Stevens Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE BRONX DEFENDERS ↗
- Who funds DC PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds THE WASHINGTON LEGAL CLINIC FOR THE HOMELESS INC ↗
- Who funds ACLU FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA INC ↗
- Who funds Fordham University ↗
- Who funds Northwestern 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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Greater Washington Community Foundation · Public Welfare Foundation Inc · The Sidley Austin Foundation · Tides Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Arnold & Porter Foundation 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.
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Arnold & Porter Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Arnold & Porter Foundation 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.