Skip to content
Justin Jacobs Jr Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Justin Jacobs Jr Charitable Trust

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.

$150k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$150k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Public Benefit$620kEnvironment$500kFood & Nutrition$200kEducation$175kCivil Rights$100k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$150,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VOTE AMERICA INC$150,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $25k → 7%STANFORD UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: $50k → 8%VOTEAMERICA INC: $150k → 10%OPENMIND PLATFORM AKA CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE INSTITUTE INC: $100k → 17%WHEN WE ALL VOTE: $100k → 14%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $300k → 12%VOTE AMERICA INC: $150k → 7%VOTEAMERICA INC: $100k → 10%VOTE AMERICA INC: $100k → 7%VOTEAMERICA INC: $100k → 10%THE PACHAMAMA ALLIANCE: $100k → 10%THE PACHAMAMA ALLIANCE: $100k → 10%LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: $100k → 10%SPUR: $70k → 10%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
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
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
2
Sf Partnership

SF Partnership is an organization comprised of SF's leading employers dedicated to supporting an equitable, resilient, and vibrant economy shared by all people working and living in San Francisco. Through education, advocacy, and research,…

—
3
Western Resource Advocates

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization fighting climate change and its impacts to sustain the environment, economy, and people of the West. As the region's go-to experts for more than three decades,…

Crime & Legal
4
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
5
Corporate Accountability Lab

The Organization unleashes the creative potential of the law to protect people and the planet from corporate abuse.

International
6
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education
7
Pew Research Center

Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. Pew Research Center generates a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and…

Social Science
8
Society of Photo Optical Instrumentation Engineers

SPIE is an international nonprofit technical society dedicated to advancing scientific research and engineering applications of optical, photonic, imaging and optoelectronic technologies through its meetings, education programs and…

—
9
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
10
Asociacion Interamericana Para La Defensa Del Ambiente

To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.

Crime & Legal
11
Pipeline Research Council International Inc

Foster an international, industry-wide collaborative community that delivers innovative applied research, and develops the means for stakeholders to leverage/implement the research.

Community Improvement
12
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Good Food Institute Inc; the most unlike its peers is When We All Vote. 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

8 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. 8 of the 9 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)
7/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Rocky Mountain Institute: $300,000 · OtherRocky Mountain InstituteLawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area: $100,000 · OtherLawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the S…OPENMIND PLATFORM AKA CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE INSTITUTE INC: $100,000 · OtherOPENMIND PLATFORM AKA CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE…WHEN WE ALL VOTE: $100,000 · OtherWHEN WE ALL VOTESPUR - SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA PLANNING AND URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATION: $70,000 · OtherSPUR - SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA PLANNING AND …VOTEAMERICA: $600,000 · Civil RightsVOTEAMERICATHE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC: $200,000 · Food & NutritionTHE GOOD FOO…The Pachamama Alliance: $200,000 · EnvironmentThe Pachamam…THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $75,000 · Education
Other$670,000Civil Rights$600,000Food & Nutrition$200,000Environment$200,000Education$75,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVOTEAMERICA: $600,000 over 5y, 5.5% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $300,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTHE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC: $200,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetThe Pachamama Alliance: $200,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetLawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area: $100,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $75,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSPUR - SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA PLANNING AND URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATION: $70,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Justin Jacobs Jr Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Justin Jacobs Jr Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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.

    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 9 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 Justin Jacobs Jr’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