· Public charity
National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges
Charitable and educational purposes include: a.) improving the standards, practices, and effectiveness of courts exercising jurisdiction over families and children; b) informing or assisting those who deal with or affect these courts; c) educating persons connected with these courts and other interested members of the public in…
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 45% of NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE & FAMILY COURT JUDGES’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k6 grants · $116k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $257k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT | $125,354 |
| ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS INC | $68,163 |
| NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR VICTIM ASSISTANCE INC | $63,578 |
| BATTERED WOMEN'S JUSTICE PROJECT | $38,809 |
| AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION FUND FOR JUSTICE EDUCATION | $21,806 |
| FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE | $21,675 |
| NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION | $12,126 |
| JUSTICE INNOVATION INC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION) | $11,362 |
| AMERICAN UNIVERSITY | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $300k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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 +17% since the first grant, against -2% for the ones you funded once.
20 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 13 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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 FY2024, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $194k 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
FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE8× · 2017–2024 · $511k · revenue +147%- ABAmerican Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education7× · 2017–2024 · $223k · revenue +38%
- IAINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE2× · 2017–2018 · $133k · revenue +52%
Funded once
- ROREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAone grant, 2017 · $23k
- IAINSPIRE ACTION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE INCone grant, 2022 · $6k · revenue -2%
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.
CSAJ is a national organization dedicated to enhancing advocacy for survivors of intimate partner violence. We develop and promote advocacy approaches that remove systemic barriers enhance organizational responses and improve professional…
The council on criminal justice works to advance understanding of the criminal justice policy choices facing the nation and builds consensus for solutions that enhance safety and justice for all. Independent and nonpartisan, we are an…
Just safe's mission is to educate the public about the needs of communities most impacted by crime, violence, and incarceration; and promote new safety solutions through community-building, leadership development, grassroots mobilization,…
The Justice Policy Institute is dedicated to reducing the use of incarceration and involvement in the justice system by promoting fair and effective policies.
The national policing institute is a nonpartisan and independent nonprofit organization dedicated to creating excellence in policing through the development, translation, and application of research.
Icadv works for the prevention and elimination of domestic violence - until the violence ends. icadv works to eliminate domestic violence through the implementation of prevention programs and public awareness in communities and schools,…
Cepp works collaboratively to improve systems of justice and advance community well-being by sharing expertise, promoting research-informed and emerging practices, and facilitating change.
Alliance for justice builds the strength of progressive movements by training and educating nonprofit organizations on advocacy, while harnessing their collective power to transform our state and federal courts.
To mobilize the community to respond to and end domestic, sexual and community violence in the black community. we actualize this mission through research, public awareness and community engagement, and resource development. ujima serves…
Organization formed to provide education, training, techinical assistance and research to a wide variety of justice agencies, private organizations and companies throughout the united states and abroad.
The national college of advocacy (nca) is the major program of the aaj education fund. the nca shall be the educational arm of aaj; shall be responsible for all aaj educational programs; and shall establish the education policy of aaj. nca…
Work with DC courts, private bar & legal services providers to increase legal representations for low & moderate income DC residents, enhance efficiency of legal services, and reduce barriers to the judicial system.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for the Study of Social Policy and the most unlike its peers is American University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
19 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. 19 of the 25 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 FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE ↗
- Who funds DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS ↗
- Who funds American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL POLICY ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE ↗
- Who funds JUSTICE INNOVATION INC ↗
- Who funds LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR VICTIM ADVOCACY INC ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS INC ↗
- Who funds AEQUITAS ↗
- Who funds District of Columbia Coalition Against Domestic ↗
- Who funds VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds BREAK THE CYCLE ↗
- Who funds INSPIRE ACTION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE INC ↗
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: John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Laura and John Arnold Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges 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.