Skip to content
Irell & Manella Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Irell & Manella Foundation

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.

$68k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$34k
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.

Crime & Legal$632kCivil Rights$144kHuman Services$90kHealth$61kInternational$50kEducation$50kScience & Tech$30kPhilanthropy$13kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $759
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $67k
$23,250
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PUBLIC COUNSEL$34,000
BET TZEDEK$23,250
SKECHERS FOUNDATION$10,000
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHINESE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION$759
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 (FY17–25, $90k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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%SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$850k · 8 repeat orgs$181k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +114% since the first grant, against +33% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
12

Total granted

$850k
$180k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+114%
+33%

Still filing today

75%
92%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $759 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 RightsRecreation & SportsHuman ServicesInternationalHealthOther
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

  • PUBLIC COUNSEL
    8× · 2017–2025 · $388k · revenue +85%
  • BT
    BET TZEDEK
    6× · 2018–2025 · $172k · revenue +114%
  • AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE
    7× · 2017–2023 · $129k · revenue +116%

Funded once

  • DIRECT RELIEFgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $50k · revenue +94%
  • CO
    CITY OF HOPE
    one grant, 2019 · $50k
  • AF
    ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTSgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $24k · revenue +188%
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
Los Angeles County Bar Association (Lacba)

Meeting the professional needs of los angeles lawyers, and improving the administration of justice.

—
2
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area

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.

—
3
Legal Aid Association of California

The Legal Aid Association of California, the statewide membership of legal services nonprofits, serves its members through advocacy and other support in efforts to provide legal assistance to low-income Californians and ensure access to…

—
4
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…

—
5
Jewish Federation Council of Greater La

Based on jewish values, the jewish federation of greater los angeles convenes and leads the community and leverages its resources to assure the continuity of the jewish people, support a secure state of israel, care for jews in need here…

Philanthropy
6
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of the District of Columbia

Preservation of civil liberties through litigation and public education.

—
7
Inner City Law Center

In 2024, Inner City Law Center, ICLC, served over 3,400 people, helping vulnerable Angelenos to remain in their homes and recover nearly $20.5 million in financial benefits.

Crime & Legal
8
Aclu Foundation of Southern California

See schedule o for detailsthe organization defends the civil liberties enshrined in the us constitution and the bill of rights through litigation, policy advocacy, media advocacy, and organizing. it fights to secure and protect the civil…

Civil Rights
9
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

See schedule o for detailsthe organization defends the civil liberties enshrined in the us constitution and the bill of rights through policy advocacy, media advocacy, and organizing. it fights to secure and protect the civil rights of all…

—
10
Lawyers for Civil Justice

The purposes for which the corporation is organized are to provide a means for defense trial lawyers and others to be heard, state a position and motivate reform of the United States civil justice system. See Schedule O

—
11
Children's Law Center of California

Children's law center of california (clc) provides legal representation for children and youth impacted by abuse and neglect. we advocate for our clients by supporting families; fighting for reunification, permanence, educational…

—
12
League of California Community Foundations

The league of california community foundations promotes and strengthens community foundations in california. through collaboration and shared learning among member foundations and building partnerships with private and public entities, we…

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alliance for Children's Rights; the most unlike its peers is The Burton 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

19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
15/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PUBLIC COUNSEL: $387,500 · Crime & LegalPUBLIC COUNSELLaw Foundation of Silicon Valley: $20,000 · Crime & Legal+2 more: $13,330 · Crime & LegalBET TZEDEK: $171,500 · OtherBET TZEDEKCITY OF HOPE: $50,000 · OtherCITY OF HOPEUC REGENTS-BERKELEY CENTER FOR LAW & TECHNOLOGY: $30,000 · OtherUC REGENTS-BERKELEY CENTER FOR L…ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: $23,900 · OtherALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTSLA LEGAL AID FOUNDATION: $13,000 · Other+6 more: $18,559 · Other+6 moreAMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE: $128,500 · Civil RightsAMERICAN JEWISH…ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $15,000 · Civil RightsANTI-DEFAMATION…SKECHERS FOUNDATION: $90,000 · Human ServicesSKECHERS …DIRECT RELIEF: $50,000 · InternationalTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $50,000 · EducationSPECIAL OLYMPICS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INC: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsTHE LOS ANGELES DODGERS FOUNDATION: $9,000 · Recreation & Sports
Crime & Legal$420,830Other$306,959Civil Rights$143,500Human Services$90,000International$50,000Education$50,000Recreation & Sports$19,000

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 budgetPUBLIC COUNSEL: $387,500 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetBET TZEDEK: $171,500 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetAMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE: $128,500 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetSKECHERS FOUNDATION: $90,000 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: $23,900 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetLaw Foundation of Silicon Valley: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetARMS WIDE OPEN CHILDHOOD CANCER FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTHE LOS ANGELES DODGERS FOUNDATION: $9,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetLegal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles: $9,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLos Angeles Innocence Project Inc: $4,330 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTHE BURTON FOUNDATION: $3,800 over 1y, 10.0% of budgetCounsel for Justice: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHOLOCAUST MUSEUM LA: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBeit T'Shuvah: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Venable Foundation IncAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Venable Foundation IncMD13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Venable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Irell & Manella Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Irell & Manella Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 Irell & Manella Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Irell & Manella Foundation 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 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-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 Irell & Manella’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