Skip to content
Civil Rights Corps at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Civil Rights Corps

We work to shift power to community-led movements, particularly those led by black and brown people who are most affected by this legal system, so they can build sufficient power to create structural change.

$113k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$59k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Crime & Legal$837kPhilanthropy$460kCommunity Improvement$168kHuman Services$150kEducation$113kReligion$75kPublic Benefit$44kHealth$37kOther$0
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $77,511, the rows itemized in this filing. The $112,901 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $35,390 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $19k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $59k
$58,761
Median grant
2
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
URBAN JUSTICE$58,761
SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE$18,750
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–23, $283k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SILICON VALLEY DEBUG: $80k → 8%SILICON VALLEY DEBUG: $70k → 8%TIDE FOUNDATION: $60k → 10%TIDES FOUNDATION: $50k → 10%TIDE FOUNDATION: $23k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
CA
MD
TN
NC
DC
LA
TX
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 6 repeat orgs$438k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +93% since the first grant, against -51% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
5

Total granted

$1.0M
$360k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+93%
-51%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $78k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesEducationArts & CultureHealthOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • WH
    W HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE
    3× · 2018–2020 · $355k · revenue +45%
  • SV
    Silicon Valley De-Bug
    2× · 2018–2019 · $150k · revenue +345%
  • THE PRAXIS PROJECT INC
    2× · 2019–2021 · $125k · revenue +144%

Funded once

  • SI
    SILENCE IS VIOLENCE FKA NEW ORLEANS BAYOU STEPPERS SOCIAL AID & PLEASUREgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $150k · revenue +93% · 57% of their budget
  • TO
    TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND
    one grant, 2019 · $80k · revenue -51%
  • FI
    FAITH IN TEXAS - PICO
    one grant, 2019 · $75k · revenue -95%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Transformative Justice of Williamson County
—
2
After Violence Project

The Texas After Violence Project is a community-based archive and documentary project cultivating deeper understanding of state-sanctioned violence on individuals, families, and communities. Our mission is to do responsible, inclusive, and…

Civil Rights
3
Prison Policy Initiative

The Organization challenges over-criminalizationand mass incarceration through research, advocacyand organizing.

Civil Rights
4
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment
5
The Promise of Justice Initiative

The promise of justice initiative works to create positive change for people in the criminal legal system at the intersection of impact litigation, direct services and community engagement.

Crime & Legal
6
Fund for Justice

Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…

Crime & Legal
7
Grassroots Leadership Inc

Transforming the narrative of criminalization: an abolitionist approach. ending the reliance on the private prison industry decarceration: advocating for policies that reduce the prison population, such as bail reform and funding…

—
8
Progress Texas Institute

The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.

Civil Rights
9
Dignity and Power Now

Dignity and Power Now (DPN) is a Los Angeles based grassroots organization that fights for the dignity and power of all incarcerated people, their families, and communities. DPNs mission is to build a Black and Brown led abolitionist…

Philanthropy
10
Justice Funders

Serve as a partner, educator, and guide for philanthropy in reimagining practices that advance a thriving and just world.

—
11
Texas Organizing Project

The Texas Organizing Project (TOP) is an explicitly pro-Black organization working to improve the lives of working class Black and Latino Texas families by building power through community organizing and civic engagement. We are a…

—
12
Progress Texas

Progress Texas is a non-profit media organization advocating for progressive ideals and policies in our state.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tides Center; the most unlike its peers is Transitional Housing & Work Program of Davison County. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
9/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

W HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE: $355,369 · Youth DevelopmentW HAYWOOD BURNS INSTI…TIDES FOUNDATION: $152,500 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUNDATIONPLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC: $100,000 · PhilanthropyPLAYERS PHILANTHROPY…HOPEWELL FUND: $75,000 · PhilanthropyHOPEWELL FUNDOPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION: $25,000 · PhilanthropyOPENCOLLECTIVE FOUND…Silicon Valley De-Bug: $150,000 · Human ServicesSilicon Valley D…TIDES CENTER: $132,500 · Human ServicesTIDES CENTERPure Justice: $150,000 · Community ImprovementPure JusticeTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $80,000 · Community ImprovementTEXAS ORGANIZ…SILENCE IS VIOLENCE FKA NEW ORLEANS BAYOU STEPPERS SOCIAL AID & PLEASURE: $150,000 · Arts & CultureTHE PRAXIS PROJECT INC: $124,500 · HealthJAIL PROJECT OF TEXAS: $123,000 · Crime & LegalTransitional Housing & Work Program of Davison County: $112,644 · OtherTransitional Hous…URBAN JUSTICE CENTER: $58,761 · OtherURBAN JUSTICE CEN…ROBERT F KENNEDY CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS: $30,000 · OtherROBERT F KENNEDY …FAITH IN TEXAS - PICO: $75,000 · OtherFAITH IN TEXAS - …SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE: $18,750 · OtherSOUTHERN VISION A…
Youth Development$355,369Philanthropy$352,500Human Services$282,500Community Improvement$230,000Arts & Culture$150,000Health$124,500Crime & Legal$123,000Other$295,155

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetW HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE: $355,369 over 3y, 3.1% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $152,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPure Justice: $150,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetSILENCE IS VIOLENCE FKA NEW ORLEANS BAYOU STEPPERS SOCIAL AID & PLEASURE: $150,000 over 1y, 57% of budgetSilicon Valley De-Bug: $150,000 over 2y, 8.8% of budgetTIDES CENTER: $132,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE PRAXIS PROJECT INC: $124,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetJAIL PROJECT OF TEXAS: $123,000 over 2y, 24% of budgetTransitional Housing & Work Program of Davison County: $112,644 over 2y, 44% of budgetPLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $80,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetHOPEWELL FUND: $75,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFAITH IN TEXAS - PICO: $75,000 over 1y, 6.9% of budgetURBAN JUSTICE CENTER: $58,761 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetROBERT F KENNEDY CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS: $30,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetOPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE: $18,750 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
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.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Heising-Simons Fo…NEO Philanthropy IncAmalgamated Charitabl…Tides FoundationFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Heising-Simons FoundationCA15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Heising-Simons Foundation · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Civil Rights Corps funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Civil Rights Corps. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Civil Rights Corps?

    Find your warmest path to Civil Rights Corps 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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 17 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Civil Rights Corps’ filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home