· Public charity
Mississippi Bar Foundation Inc
The foundation will strive to improve the administration of justice through the support of organizations which provide legal services to the poor and needy.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $15k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $502k
- $250k+1 grant · $262k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MS CENTER FOR JUSTICE | $262,257 |
| MS VOLUNTEER LAWYERS PROJECT | $148,228 |
| MISSION FIRST | $110,069 |
| MS CENTER FOR LEGAL SERVICES | $102,323 |
| NORTH MS RURAL LEGAL SERVICES | $83,437 |
| THE MISSISSIPPI BAR | $57,838 |
| UNIV OF MS - CHILD ADVOCACY CLINIC | $7,913 |
| GULF COAST CENTER FOR NONVIOLENCE | $7,421 |
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 (FY18–18, $14k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 95% of Mississippi Bar Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 96% of the giving stays in MS; read by stated purpose it is 18% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
10 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 2 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
- MCMISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE6× · 2018–2025 · $2.3M · revenue +27%
- MCMississippi Center For Legal Services Corporation8× · 2018–2025 · $1.3M · revenue +40%
- NMNorth MS Rural Legal Services Inc8× · 2018–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +30%
Funded once
- KCKID'S CHANCE OF MISSISSIPPI INCone grant, 2023 · $66k · revenue -33% · 58% of their budget
- MCMS CENTER FOR LEGAL SERVICESone grant, 2017 · $47k
- MLMB- LAWYERS AND JUDGES ASSISTANCE PROGRAMone grant, 2022 · $40k
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.
MCIR is an independent nonprofit news organization, tasked with educating and informing the people of Mississippi with in-depth, fact-based, nonpartisan information. MCIR focuses on institutionalized injustice and generational poverty.
Promoting northeast mississippi for industrial growth.
Legal services alabama is a statewide nonprofit dedicated to providing access to justice and quality civil legal assistance to educate and empower alabama's low-income community.
The tennessee justice center (tjc) advocates on behalf of low-income tennesseans in areas of public policy having the greatest impact on their health and welfare.
Memphis Public Interest Law Center was created to fill the gap in legal services in the Memphis area through provision of research, education, and advocacy to underserved populations and issues.
Midpenn legal services is a non-profit, public interest law firm dedicated to providing equal access to justice and high quality civil legal services to low income residents and survivors of domestic violence in 18 counties in central…
Seeking to build relationships with diverse institutions around the state to build the power to effect political change in a non-partisan way while strengthening the institutions we engage with to help execute their institution's mission…
To provide free legal services to low-income citizens of jefferson county
Legal services to poor and underprivileged.
To enforce, advance and defend the civil legal rights of low income and vulnerable people, especially on behalf of elderly, children, victims of domestic violence and persons with disabilities, by providing free, civil legal assistance to…
MALS is a non-profit law firm whose mission is to provide excellence in legal advocacy for those in need. The vision is to promote justice for those in need. To carry out its mission, MALS delivery of client services is provided through a…
The dual mission of southwest louisiana law center is to provide first rate legal services to the unemployed and economically disadvantaged residents of southwest louisiana and to utilize the organization's legal capabilities for the…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mississippi Center for Justice and the most unlike its peers is Kid's Chance of Mississippi Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 28 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 MISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds Mississippi Center For Legal Services Corporation ↗
- Who funds North MS Rural Legal Services Inc ↗
- Who funds MISSISSIPPI VOLUNTEER LAWYERS PROJECT ↗
- Who funds MISSION FIRST INC ↗
- Who funds KID'S CHANCE OF MISSISSIPPI INC ↗
- Who funds GULF COAST CENTER FOR NONVIOLENCE INC ↗
- Who funds EL PUEBLO INC ↗
- Who funds DISABILITY RIGHTS MISSISSIPPI ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Amazonsmile 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 Mississippi Bar Foundation Inc 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Mississippi Bar Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Mississippi Bar Foundation Inc 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.