· Private foundation
Lakeshore Foundation Dated April 5 2011
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $50k–250k3 grants · $455k
- $250k+15 grants · $21M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER | $3,000,000 |
| OXFAM AMERICA | $3,000,000 |
| THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | $3,000,000 |
| IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CORPS | $2,000,000 |
| THE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC | $2,000,000 |
| CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT | $2,000,000 |
| FLORENCE IMMIGRANT & REFUGEES RIGHTS PROJECT | $2,000,000 |
| Justice for Migrant Women | $1,000,000 |
| ENERGY FOUNDATION | $1,000,000 |
| ENERGY FOUNDATION CHINA | $500,000 |
| NEW ENGLAND INNOCENCE PROJECT | $500,000 |
| NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INNOCENCE PROJECT | $350,000 |
| HESPERIAN HEALTH GUIDES | $350,000 |
| GREAT NORTH INNOCENCE PROJECT | $250,000 |
| Fund For Investigative Foundation | $250,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $25.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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 +56% since the first grant, against +44% for the ones you funded once.
39 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2025, 21 since wound down.
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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC8× · 2018–2025 · $24M · revenue +211%- SPSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC9× · 2017–2025 · $13M · revenue +10%
- TITHE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC8× · 2017–2025 · $12M · revenue +135%
Funded once
- IPINNOCENCE PROJECT NEW YORKone grant, 2020 · $1.4M
- TCTIDE CENTERone grant, 2020 · $800k
- NYNEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWone grant, 2020 · $500k
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 purpose is to exonerate the wrongly convicted, uncover and remedy past misuse of evidence in the courtroom, and improve the dialogue among stakeholders in the criminal legal system to prevent future injustice.
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…
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.
To lead and coordinate the global initiative to address and prevent criminalization, violence, and impunity against indigenous peoples towards strengthening their collectives, solidarity, and actions.
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.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…
Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.
The Guernica Centre for International Justice represents the interests of victims in national and international legal proceedings, putting in place transnational accountability strategies that seek to maximize the protection of victims'…
Because liberty and justice are paramount to a democratic society, it is the mission of the Montana Innocence Project to free the innocent and unjustly incarcerated, and advocate for systems of Justice that are accurate, accountable, and…
The tennessee innocence project is dedicated to investigating and litigating claims of actual innocence. it is designed to prevent and correct wrongful convictions throughout the state of tennessee.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Pennsylvania Innocence Project and the most unlike its peers is Rare Trait Hope Fund. 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 26 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
38 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. 38 of the 55 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
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 WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds THE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds FLORENCE IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE RIGHTS PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CORPS INC ↗
- Who funds THE ENERGY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW ENGLAND INNOCENCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds JUSTICE FOR MIGRANT WOMEN ↗
- Who funds GREAT NORTH INNOCENCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds OFICINA LEGAL DEL PUEBLO UNIDO INC ↗
- Who funds HESPERIAN HEALTH GUIDES ↗
- Who funds National Center for Youth Law ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA INNOCENCE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds JUVENILE LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds INNOCENCE PROJECT NEW ORLEANS ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON INNOCENCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR INTEGRITY IN FORENSIC SCIENCE INC ↗
- Who funds EcoRise Youth Innovations ↗
- Who funds INNOCENCE PROJECT OF FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds LEGAL OUTREACH INC ↗
- Who funds Asian Immigrant Women Advocates Inc ↗
- Who funds ECO-LOGIC DEVELOPMENT FUND ↗
- Who funds Rocky Mountain Innocence Center ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES ENERGY FOUNDATION ↗
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: Jewish Communal Fund · Tides Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · The Ford Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Adx Foundation · Freedom Together Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Windward Fund · Foundation to Promote Open Society · The James Irvine Foundation
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 Lakeshore Foundation Dated April 5 2011 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.
- Innocence Project of Florida Inc — 30% of income from government
- New England Innocence Project — 12% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% 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.