Skip to content
Integrity Media Nfp at a glance

· Private foundation

Integrity Media Nfp

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.

$413k
Granted FY2024still arriving
15
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2024.

Civil Rights$145kCommunity Improvement$65kArts & Culture$60kEducation$30kPublic Benefit$25kRecreation & Sports$13kHuman Services$8kAnimals$5kOther$0
02FY2024 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k8 grants · $43k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $70k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $300k
$7,500
Median grant
8
States reached
$814k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$150,000
PEOPLE POWER INITIATIVES$100,000
COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR SCHEERPOST$50,000
NEIU FOUNDATION$25,000
INVISIBLE INSTITUTE$25,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
BAY AREA VIDEO COALITION$10,000
CONSORTIUM FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM$7,500
BREAKTHROUGH BT MEDIA$5,000
FRACTURED ATLAS$5,000
MEDIA FREEDOM FOUNDATION$5,000
BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE$5,000
MIDDLE EAST CULTURAL AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY$5,000
UNCHAINED TV$5,000
BASED POLITICS$5,000
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 (FY23–23, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FOUNDATION: $8k → 20%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

ME
VT
IL
NY
CA
VA
MD
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.

43%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$225k · 5 repeat orgs$293k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +43% since the first grant, against +19% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
9

Total granted

$225k
$68k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+19%

Still filing today

80%
78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 45% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $225k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24
Arts & CultureEducationCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementAnimalsInternationalOther
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

  • II
    Invisible Institute
    2× · 2023–2024 · $33k · revenue +120%
  • TC
    The Consortium for Independent Journalism Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $15k · revenue +17%
  • MF
    Media Freedom Foundation
    2× · 2023–2024 · $13k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $8k
  • FA
    FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING INC
    one grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue +19%
  • IW
    INDEPENDENT WORLD TELEVISION INC
    one grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue +13%
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
Press Watch

To educate journalists and the public, and foster public debate, about improving political journalism to reflect public needs and hold the powerful accountable.

—
2
Institute for Public Accuracy

To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.

Arts & Culture
3
Independent Media Institute

IMI amplifies the reach and impact of the work produced by our partner journalists,public intellectuals and editorial teams on the leading issues of our times. The goal is to educate, inspire, and collaborate with movements and visionaries…

Arts & Culture
4
First Look Institute Inc

First Look Institute supports fearless investigative journalism, innovative and cinematic nonfiction filmmaking, and press freedom initiatives to protect the right to a free and open society and press.

Arts & Culture
5
Foundation for Investigative Journalism

Mission:To provide ideology-free media platforms representing balanced news and educational forums to inform and increase critical thinking and engagement.

Public Benefit
6
The Media Institute

To foster freedom of speech, a competitive media and communications industry, and excellence in journalism.

—
7
Injustice Watch Nfp

Injustice Watch is a Chicago-based nonprofit journalism organization that examines issues of equity and justice in the court system.

Civil Rights
8
The Conversationalist
—
9
The Libertarian Institute

Disseminate information and education about pertinent economic, social and governmental topics, via print, web and other media to educate the public about the principles of LIbertarianism.

Education
10
Prism Reports Inc

Through in-depth and thought-provoking journalism, prism reflects the lived experiences of people most impacted by injustice. As an independent and nonprofit newsroom LED by journalists of color, we tell stories from the ground up: to…

Education
11
Independent Berkeley Student Publishing Company Inc

The Independent Berkeley Student Publishing Co., Inc. (The Daily Californian) is an independent newspaper that trains UC Berkeley students for careers in journalism and business. The paper and its digital products are the primary source…

—
12
Inequality Media

To use digital media for the purpose of educating and engaging the public in topics regarding inequality and imbalance of power in america.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is People Power Initiatives Inc; the most unlike its peers is Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity. 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

18 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. 18 of the 24 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
8/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $150,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCOMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR SCHEERPOST: $57,500 · OtherCOMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR SCHEERPOSTNORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $25,000 · OtherNORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · Other+6 more: $37,500 · Other+6 morePEOPLE POWER INITIATIVES INC: $107,500 · Civil RightsPEOPLE POWER INITIATIVES INCInvisible Institute: $32,500 · Civil RightsInvisible InstituteThe Bay Area Video Coalition Incorporated: $10,000 · Arts & CultureThe Bay A…INDEPENDENT WORLD TELEVISION INC: $7,500 · Arts & CultureINDEPENDE…INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF JOURNALISTIC CLARITY: $7,500 · Arts & CultureINSTITUTE…TRUTHOUT: $7,500 · Arts & CultureTRUTHOUTFRACTURED ATLAS INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureFRACTURED…BreakthroughBT Media Inc: $5,000 · Arts & CultureBreakthro…The Consortium for Independent Journalism Inc: $15,000 · EducationAMERICAN BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE: $5,000 · EducationFAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING INC: $7,500 · Community ImprovementQUINCY INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: $7,500 · Community ImprovementMedia Freedom Foundation: $12,500 · Recreation & SportsFREEDOM OF THE PRESS FOUNDATION: $7,500 · Human Services
Other$280,000Civil Rights$140,000Arts & Culture$42,500Education$20,000Community Improvement$15,000Recreation & Sports$12,500Human Services$7,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPEOPLE POWER INITIATIVES INC: $107,500 over 2y, 23% of budgetInvisible Institute: $32,500 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetNORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetThe Consortium for Independent Journalism Inc: $15,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetMedia Freedom Foundation: $12,500 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetThe Bay Area Video Coalition Incorporated: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING INC: $7,500 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetINDEPENDENT WORLD TELEVISION INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFREEDOM OF THE PRESS FOUNDATION: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF JOURNALISTIC CLARITY: $7,500 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCOMMON DREAMS INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetQUINCY INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTRUTHOUT: $7,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFRACTURED ATLAS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUnchainedTV: $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetAMERICAN BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMIDDLE EAST CULTURAL AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBreakthroughBT Media Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

John D and Catherine …The Ford FoundationLannan FoundationPark Foundation IncThe Chicago Community…Gs Donor Advised Phil…ImpactassetsincTides FoundationSilicon Valley Commun…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…
John D and Catherine T Macarthur FoundationIL14.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Lannan Foundation · Park Foundation Inc · The Chicago Community Trust · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Impactassetsinc · Tides Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

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 Integrity Media Nfp funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Integrity Media Nfp. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 Integrity Media Nfp?

    Find your warmest path to Integrity Media Nfp 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 24 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Integrity Media Nfp’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