· Public charity
Fwdus Education Fund Inc
Fwd.us education fund educates the public about immigration and criminal justice policy and reform.
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
- Under $10k2 grants · $14k
- $10k–50k49 grants · $1.1M
- $50k–250k15 grants · $1.3M
- $250k+1 grant · $295k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AL OTRO LADO INC | $294,500 |
| DC JUSTICE LAB | $175,000 |
| KIND INC | $158,500 |
| PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITATIVE | $150,000 |
| CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA INC | $100,000 |
| AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER | $90,500 |
| BORDER SERVANT CORPS INC | $81,500 |
| NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK | $75,000 |
| NETWORK ON WOMEN IN PRISON | $75,000 |
| JUSTICE ACTION CENTER | $65,000 |
| GOOD NEIGHBOR SETTLEMENT HOUSE INC | $60,000 |
| NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD | $55,000 |
| UNDOCUBLACK NETWORK INC | $53,000 |
| NEW LIFE CENTERS OF CHICAGOLAND NFP | $50,500 |
| THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR INCARCERATED AND FORMERLY INCARCERATED WOMEN AND G | $50,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $8.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 81% of those 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 +66% since the first grant, against +33% for the ones you funded once.
119 repeat relationships — 38 still active in FY2024, 81 since wound down; 27 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, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $751k 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
- TPTHE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE5× · 2019–2024 · $1.9M · revenue +69% · 27% of their budget
- JAJustice Action Center7× · 2018–2024 · $1.8M · revenue +773% · 44% of their budget
- NYNEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION INC8× · 2017–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +440%
Funded once
- SFSENECA FAMILY OF AGENCIESgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $700k · revenue +44%
- FAFAMILY ACTION NETWORK MOVEMENT INCone grant, 2021 · $655k · revenue -13%
Cornell Universitygraduatedone grant, 2018 · $473k · revenue +49%
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 National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) is a leader in advancing immigrant rights through its unique strategy drawing on its legal services to promote legal reform through litigation, advocacy and strategic communications.
The Equal Justice Center is a non-profit law firm and employment justice organization which empowers low-income families, workers, and communities to achieve fair treatment in the workplace, in the justice system, and in our shared society…
Ijc's mission is to recruit, train, and populate the immigration field with the highest quality legal advocates to create a new generation of leaders with a lifelong commitment to immigrant justice.
Ccij utilizes coordination, advocacy, and legal services to fight for the liberationof immigrants in detention in california. we seek to empower immigrants in detentionand their communities through technical assistance, education, and…
To deliver legal and social services to people and families who want to put down roots in the u.s. and cultivate welcoming communities that uphold our collective freedoms.
Legal, immigration and community organizing
Southern California Immigration Project is a public interest nonprofit organization dedicated to providing pro bono legal services to survivors of human and civil rights violations.
As one of the most enduring civil rights institutions on the West Coast, we work to dismantle systems of oppression and racism, and build an equitable and just society.
Colectiva Legal del Pueblo is a non-hierarchal collective organization founded for and by undocumented immigrants working to build community leadership and power for migrant justice through legal services, advocacy and education.
La Raza Centro Legal San Francisco provides high quality, highly trusted, free legal services to low-income or immigrant clients in the San Francisco Bay Area.
To protect and promote the basic human rights of immigrants through a unique combination of free direct services, impact litigation, policy reform, and public education at local, state, and national levels.
Our mission is to reflect Gods intent for humanity, to live as a reconciled and and restored community. We stand in solidarity with immigrants by providing high quality, affordable immigration legal services and advocating for just…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Just Futures Law Inc and the most unlike its peers is Mission Border Hope. 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.
Your grantees are a median of 20 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
259 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. 259 of the 291 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Justice Action Center ↗
- Who funds OKLAHOMANS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM INC ↗
- Who funds VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds TULSA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds AL OTRO LADO ↗
- Who funds DC JUSTICE LAB ↗
- Who funds WELCOMEUS INC ↗
- Who funds One Voice ↗
- Who funds TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Global Response Management Inc ↗
- Who funds SENECA FAMILY OF AGENCIES ↗
- Who funds Good Neighbor Settlement House Inc ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds FAMILY ACTION NETWORK MOVEMENT INC ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER INC ↗
- Who funds Transgender Law Center ↗
- Who funds THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR INCARCERATED AND FORMERLY INCARCERATED WOMEN & GIRLS ↗
- Who funds OKLAHOMA POLICY INC ↗
- Who funds Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona Inc ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds KIND INC ↗
- Who funds LA UNION DEL PUEBLO ENTERO ↗
- Who funds UNITED WE DREAM NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds HIGHLANDER RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Cornell University ↗
- Who funds BLACK ALLIANCE FOR JUST IMMIGRATION ↗
- Who funds OFICINA LEGAL DEL PUEBLO UNIDO INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION IN ↗
- Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds Central American Resource Center - CARECEN - of California ↗
- Who funds CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds TOGETHER & FREE INC ↗
- Who funds ASYLUM SEEKER ADVOCACY PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds Alianza Americas ↗
- Who funds PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC ↗
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: NEO Philanthropy Inc · Borealis Philanthropy · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Hispanics in Philanthropy · Immigrant Legal Resource Center · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Vera Institute of Justice Inc · The Ford Foundation · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Fwdus Inc · Public Welfare Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund
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 Fwdus Education Fund Inc 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.
- World Relief Corp of National Association of Evangelicals — 67% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Jacksonville Area Legal Aid Inc — 13% of income from government
- Tulsa Community Foundation — 11% of income from government
- Casa Inc — 8% of income from government
- Catholic Charities of Central Florida Inc — 3% 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.