Skip to content
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Mobilize community voice, advocate for sound policy, and eradicate injustice to promote equal access to opporunity regardless of wealth,race, income, and place.

$215k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$105k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Environment$623kCommunity Improvement$50kPublic Benefit$40kHealth$35kInternational$25k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $110k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $105k
$30,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$19M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRESNO BUILDING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES$105,000
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION$35,000
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK$30,000
FAITH IN THE VALLEY$30,000
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPENEURS$15,000
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 (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 91% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ASIAN PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK: $16k → 10%ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COALITION: $16k → 11%FAITH IN THE VALLEY: $40k → 12%CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK FISCALLY SPONSORED BY SOC: $35k → 14%COMMUNITY UNITED IN LANARE: $10k → 19%CENTER ON RACE POVERTY & THE ENVIRONMENT: $25k → 10%FAITH IN THE VALLEY: $30k → 12%SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS: $30k → 14%CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK: $40k → 19%CENTER ON RACE POVERTY & THE ENVIRONMENT: $16k → 10%FAITH IN THE VALLEY: $15k → 12%SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS: $15k → 14%CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK: $30k → 19%FAITH IN THE VALLEY: $10k → 12%SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPENEURS: $15k → 14%NO ON MEASURE C 2022: $25k → 19%SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPENEURS: $15k → 14%CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION: $35k → 19%SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS: $10k → 14%CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION: $35k → 19%CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION: $25k → 19%CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION: $20k → 19%CENTRO BINACIONAL PARA EL DESARROLLO INDIGENA OAXAQUENO: $25k → 19%FRESNO BUILDING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES: $105k → 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.
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 24% of Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 97%.

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountabilitylessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 3.2% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$641k · 6 repeat orgs$132k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
7

Total granted

$641k
$132k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+160%

Still filing today

100%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementCrime & LegalEducationInternationalOther
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

  • FB
    Fresno Building Healthy Communities
    6× · 2018–2024 · $225k · revenue +28%
  • SA
    SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC
    5× · 2019–2024 · $120k · revenue +345%
  • CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION
    3× · 2020–2024 · $90k · revenue +73%

Funded once

  • CS
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
  • CB
    Centro Binacional Para El Desarrollo Indigena Oaxaquenograduated
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +188%
  • NO
    NO ON MEASURE C 2022
    one grant, 2022 · $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
California Environmental Justice Alliance

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…

Environment
2
California Environmental Voters

To increase public awareness of elected officials' performances on environmental issues, to influence decisions of public officials on environmental legislation and policy, and to engage in related social welfare activities to promote and…

Civil Rights
3
Central Valley Partnership

The Central Valley Partnership (CVP) conducts and collaborates in training initiatives, including community organizer training, education on labor history and issues, messaging workshops, etc., aimed at fostering the establishment of new…

Civil Rights
4
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
5
California Donor Table

California Donor Table anchors a hub of donors, foundations, and community leaders. We pool together our resources to shape California into a truly democratic state that works for the people, not the powerful. Rooted in our commitment to…

Civil Rights
6
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

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,…

Employment
7
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network

To promote health equity by advocating for public policies and sufficient resources to address the health needs of communities of color.

Health
8
Active San Gabriel Valley

Active San Gabriel Valley (ActiveSGV) is a community-based environmental advocacy and public health non-profit organization. Our mission is to promote a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley.

Community Improvement
9
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy

CAUSE's mission is to build grassroots power to realize social, economic and environmental justice for the people of the Central Coast Region through policy research, leadership development, organizing and advocacy.

Community Improvement
10
Ecology Action of Santa Cruz

The primary and specific purpose for which the said corporation is formed is to empower individuals, businesses and communities to take actions today that achieve environmental and economic sustainability. The activities of the corporation…

Environment
11
California Interfaith Power & Light

California Interfaith Power & Light inspires and mobilizes individuals and communities of faith and conscience to take boldand justaction on climate change.

Environment
12
California Coastkeeper dba California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Coastkeeper Alliance unites Waterkeeper programs statewide to fight for swimmable, fishable, and drinkable waters for all Californians.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Central California Environmental Justice Network; the most unlike its peers is Centro Binacional Para El Desarrollo Indigena Oaxaqueno. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 13 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Fresno Building Healthy Communities: $225,444 · Community ImprovementFresno Building Healthy CommunitiesFAITH IN THE VALLEY: $95,000 · Community ImprovementFAITH IN THE VALLEYSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $120,000 · EnvironmentSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPR…Central California Environmental Justice Network: $70,000 · EnvironmentCentral California Environmental…Asian Pacific Environmental Network: $16,000 · EnvironmentAsian Pacific Environmental Netw…Environmental Health Coalition: $16,000 · EnvironmentEnvironmental Health CoalitionCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION: $90,000 · EducationCALIFORNIA ST…CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO: $25,000 · OtherCALIFORNIA …NO ON MEASURE C 2022: $25,000 · OtherNO ON MEASU…SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPENEURS: $15,000 · OtherSOCIAL AND …COMMUNITY UNITED IN LANARE: $10,429 · OtherCOMMUNITY U…CENTER ON RACE POVERTY & THE ENVIRONMENT: $41,000 · Crime & LegalCentro Binacional Para El Desarrollo Indigena Oaxaqueno: $25,000 · International
Community Improvement$320,444Environment$222,000Education$90,000Other$75,429Crime & Legal$41,000International$25,000

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 budgetFresno Building Healthy Communities: $225,444 over 6y, 2.3% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $120,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetFAITH IN THE VALLEY: $95,000 over 4y, 2.3% of budgetCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION: $90,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCentral California Environmental Justice Network: $70,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetCENTER ON RACE POVERTY & THE ENVIRONMENT: $41,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetCentro Binacional Para El Desarrollo Indigena Oaxaqueno: $25,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetAsian Pacific Environmental Network: $16,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetEnvironmental Health Coalition: $16,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

The California Wellne…The California Endowm…Sierra Health Foundat…Public Health Institu…The James Irvine Foun…Kaiser Foundation Hos…Amalgamated Charitabl…Movement Strategy Cen…Resources Legacy FundThe Schmidt Family Fo…Common Counsel Founda…Tides Center
The California Wellness FoundationCA17.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The California Wellness Foundation · The California Endowment · Sierra Health Foundation Center for Health Program Management · Public Health Institute · The James Irvine Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Movement Strategy Center · Resources Legacy Fund · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Common Counsel Foundation · Tides Center

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 Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%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
    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 Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability?

    Find your warmest path to Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability 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 13 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability’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