Skip to content
International Academy of Trial Lawyers Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

International Academy of Trial Lawyers Foundation

The mission of the foundation is to engage in charitable and educational activities relating to the law and legal education in the united states and throughout the international legal community.

$295k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$75k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Crime & Legal$1.7MInternational$180kHuman Services$150kYouth Development$41kArts & Culture$35kHousing & Shelter$32kCivil Rights$25k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $260,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $295,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $35,000 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $185k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $75k
$25,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$10M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VECINA$75,000
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRIAL ADVOCACY$30,000
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF TRIAL LAWYERS$30,000
ALFRED FRIENDLY PRESS PARTNERS$25,000
SURVIVOR VENTURES INC$25,000
INNOCENCE PROJECT NEW ORLEANS$25,000
WORD JUSTICE PROJECT$25,000
POLARIS PROJECT$15,000
A SENSE OF HOME$10,000
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 (FY23–25, $150k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, 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%A SENSE OF HOME: $35k → 14%SURVIVOR VENTURES INC: $25k → 19%A SENSE OF HOME: $35k → 14%SURVIVOR VENTURES INC: $25k → 19%A SENSE OF HOME: $10k → 14%SURVIVOR VENTURES INC: $20k → 19%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

MN
NV
PA
CT
CA
CO
MO
VA
MD
DC
LA
AL
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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 15 repeat orgs$155k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
7

Total granted

$2.0M
$155k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+7%
+46%

Still filing today

100%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’23’24’25
Crime & LegalHuman ServicesCivil RightsInternationalSocial ScienceYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • IA
    INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF TRIAL LAWYERS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $772k · revenue +5%
  • V
    VECINA
    5× · 2021–2025 · $250k · revenue +164% · 31% of their budget
  • TN
    THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $220k · revenue +22%

Funded once

  • P
    PEACEBUILDERS
    one grant, 2019 · $35k
  • EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVEgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +85%
  • AC
    AFRICAN CENTER FOR LEGAL EXCELLENCE
    one grant, 2019 · $25k
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
American Law Institute

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…

Crime & Legal
2
Alliance for Justice

Alliance for justice builds the strength of progressive movements by training and educating nonprofit organizations on advocacy, while harnessing their collective power to transform our state and federal courts.

Civil Rights
3
American Association for Justice Education Fund

The national college of advocacy (nca) is the major program of the aaj education fund. the nca shall be the educational arm of aaj; shall be responsible for all aaj educational programs; and shall establish the education policy of aaj. nca…

—
4
The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel

Enhance the ability of actec members to provide the most efficient and highest quality services to their clients; develop qualified trust and estate counselors; improve and reform probate, trust and tax laws, procedures, and standards of…

Community Improvement
5
Office of the Appellate Defender

Oad strives to ensure that poor people convicted of felonies receive full and equal access to justice by providing exceptional appellate representation, improving the quality of indigent defense representation through education & training,…

Crime & Legal
6
National Association of College and University Attorneys

To advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.

—
7
Afl-Cio Union Lawyers Alliance

Afl-cio union lawyers alliance was established to better the conditions of working men and women and their families by enhancing the quality of legal representation that is available to the afl-cio and the national and international unions…

—
8
Association of Legal Administrators

Ala is the catalyst for growth by providing: diverse educational experiences, engaged peer communities, strategic solutions, dynamic resources, and trusted networks.

—
9
American Intellectual Property Law Association

The association was formed to maintain a high standard of professional ethics among its members and to aid in the institution of improvements in legal education and to provide information to the public in laws relating to patents,…

—
10
The Bar Association of San Francisco

The bar association of san francisco champions equal access to justice and promotes humanity, excellence, and diversity in the legal profession. we provide legal services to disadvantaged and underserved individuals in san francisco. we…

—
11
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
12
Twin Cities Diversity in Practice

To attract, recruit, advance, and retain attorneys of color in the twin cities through education and collaboration with member organizations.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Institute for Trial Advocacy; the most unlike its peers is The Alfred Friendly Foundation. 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

21 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. 21 of the 22 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
16/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF TRIAL LAWYERS: $772,111 · OtherINTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF TRIAL LAWYERSTHE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE: $220,000 · OtherTHE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE+4 more: $110,000 · Other+4 moreVECINA: $250,000 · Crime & LegalVECINAPUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER INC: $75,000 · Crime & LegalPUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER IN…WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT: $50,000 · Crime & LegalWORLD JUSTICE PROJECTINNOCENCE PROJECT NEW ORLEANS: $40,000 · Crime & LegalINNOCENCE PROJECT NEW OR…PHILADELPHIA LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER INC C/O THE ORGANIZATION: $40,000 · Crime & LegalPHILADELPHIA LEGAL ASSIS…+1 more: $10,000 · Crime & LegalA SENSE OF HOME: $80,000 · Human ServicesA SENSE O…SURVIVOR VENTURES INC: $70,000 · Human ServicesSURVIVOR …EDEN CENTERS: $32,100 · Human ServicesEDEN CENT…POLARIS PROJECT: $120,000 · InternationalKellermann Foundation: $25,000 · InternationalNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRIAL ADVOCACY: $137,400 · Social ScienceNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN JUDGES: $34,500 · Civil RightsEQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE: $25,000 · Civil RightsHOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $40,680 · Youth DevelopmentCOUNCIL OF CHIEF JUDGES OF THE STATE COURTS OF APPEAL: $20,300 · Public Benefit
Other$1,102,111Crime & Legal$465,000Human Services$182,100International$145,000Social Science$137,400Civil Rights$59,500Youth Development$40,680Public Benefit$20,300

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 budgetINTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF TRIAL LAWYERS: $772,111 over 9y, 23% of budgetVECINA: $250,000 over 5y, 31% of budgetTHE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE: $220,000 over 8y, 0.9% of budgetNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRIAL ADVOCACY: $137,400 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetPOLARIS PROJECT: $120,000 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetA SENSE OF HOME: $80,000 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetPUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER INC: $75,000 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetSURVIVOR VENTURES INC: $70,000 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetWORLD JUSTICE PROJECT: $50,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetHOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $40,680 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetINNOCENCE PROJECT NEW ORLEANS: $40,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetPHILADELPHIA LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER INC C/O THE ORGANIZATION: $40,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetThe Alfred Friendly Foundation: $35,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN JUDGES: $34,500 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetEDEN CENTERS: $32,100 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetEQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKellermann Foundation: $25,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetCOUNCIL OF CHIEF JUDGES OF THE STATE COURTS OF APPEAL: $20,300 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetNEW HAVEN LEGAL ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE NITA FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 2.4% 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.

National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA6.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 International Academy of Trial Lawyers Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from International Academy of Trial Lawyers Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • Public Justice Center Inc: 5% of income from government
  • New Haven Legal Assistance Association Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely 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.

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 22 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on International Academy of Trial Lawyers’ 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