Skip to content
Foundation for Justice Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Foundation for Justice Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$30k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$30k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Civil Rights$86kCrime & Legal$86kHealth$55kHuman Services$16kInternational$4k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$30,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$709k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION$30,000
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 (FY20–20, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS: $5k → 11%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.
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.

73%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$179k · 6 repeat orgs$67k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +87% since the first grant, against -6% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
6

Total granted

$179k
$67k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+87%
-6%

Still filing today

83%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Crime & LegalCivil RightsHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • CF
    CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION INC
    2× · 2023–2025 · $49k · revenue +217%
  • DR
    DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS
    2× · 2017–2018 · $48k · revenue +87%
  • FJ
    FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC
    2× · 2019–2023 · $37k · revenue +8%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $25k
  • JI
    JUSTICE IN AGING
    one grant, 2022 · $16k · revenue -24%
  • GA
    GEORGIA ADVOCACY OFFICE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -18%
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
Disability Rights Maine

Disability rights maine advances justice and equality by enforcing rights and expanding opportunities for people with disabilities in maine.

Crime & Legal
2
Disability Rights Rhode Island

To assist rhode islanders with differing abilities in their efforts to achieve full inclusion in society and to exercise their civil and human rights through the provision of legal advocacy.

Civil Rights
3
Disability Rights of Pennsylvania

Drp protects and advocates for rights of people with disabilities so that they may live the lives they choose, free from abuse, neglect, discrimination and segregation.

Civil Rights
4
Disability Rights Iowa

To advance through all resources the human and legal rights of individuals with disabilities. disability rights iowa provides free legal and non-legal advocacy assistance to persons with mental illness, disabilities and certain social…

—
5
Disability Rights Center - Nh Inc

Disability rights center - new hampshire protects, advances, and strengthens the legal rights and advocacy interests of all people with disabilities.

Human Services
6
Disability Law Center Inc

To provide protection and advocacy services for persons with disabilities.

Crime & Legal
7
Disability Rights Montana

Disability Rights Montana envisions a society where people with disabilities have equality of opportunity and are able to participate fully in community life by exercising choice and self-determination. Because of this vision, the mission…

Civil Rights
8
Center for Legal Advocacy

To protect and promote the rights of persons with disabilities and older people in colorado through direct representation, advocacy, education, and legislative analysis.

Civil Rights
9
Disability Rights New Jersey a New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation

Drnj's mission is to protect, advocate for and advance the rights of persons with disabilities in pursuit of a society in which persons with disabilities exercise self-determination and choice, and are treated with dignity and…

Crime & Legal
10
Disability Rights Wisconsin Inc

Legal protection and advocacy to protect the rights of people with disabilities in wisconsin.

—
11
Disability Rights California

Drc works in partnership with disabled people to defend rights, advance opportunities, grow power, and expand public support for disability justice in california and beyond.

Civil Rights
12
Disability Rights North Carolina

Disability rights north carolina is a legal advocacy organization that advances and defends the rights of people with all types of disabilities, of all ages, throughout north carolina.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Disability Rights Texas; the most unlike its peers is Tash Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 12 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM: $22,500 · OtherNATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAMJUSTICE IN AGING: $16,000 · OtherJUSTICE IN AGINGGEORGIA ADVOCACY OFFICE INC: $15,000 · OtherGEORGIA ADVOCACY OFFICE INCARC MASSACHUSETTS INC: $15,000 · OtherARC MASSACHUSETTS INCMASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH INC: $7,500 · OtherMASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH INCTASH INC: $4,000 · OtherCENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION INC: $48,500 · Crime & LegalCENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION INCFLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC: $37,000 · Crime & LegalFLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INCDISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS: $48,000 · Civil RightsDISABILITY RIGHTS TEXA…BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesPARENT PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE INC: $2,000 · Health
Other$105,000Crime & Legal$85,500Civil Rights$48,000Human Services$5,000Health$2,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION INC: $48,500 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetDISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS: $48,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetFLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC: $37,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetJUSTICE IN AGING: $16,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGEORGIA ADVOCACY OFFICE INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetARC MASSACHUSETTS INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH INC: $7,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetBRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTASH INC: $4,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPARENT PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO4.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Foundation for Justice Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Foundation for Justice Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 74%
  • Arc Massachusetts Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Brain Injury Association of Massachusetts Inc: 74% of income from government
  • Parent Professional Advocacy League Inc: 8% of 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)
2rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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 Foundation for Justice Inc?

Find your warmest path to Foundation for Justice Inc 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 12 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Foundation for Justice’s 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