Loading…
Loading…
· Public charity
The organization's primary exempt purpose is to award grants for (a) the delivery of civil legal assistance to the poor and disadvantaged in pennsylvania by non-profit corporations described in section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended; (b) the delivery of civil legal assistance to the poor and disadvantaged in…
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2025.
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY18–25, $1.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 19% — the area typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. 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 line in 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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 +58% since the first grant, against +57% for the ones you funded once.
45 repeat relationships — 42 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k 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.
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.
PILI engages, inspires and empowers those advancing equal access to justice.
To create a culture of inclusion and highlight diversity successes and initiatives in the pittsburgh legal community; and to educate and assist pittsburgh area legal employers in increasing the hiring, retention, and inclusion of legal…
To use our legal mandate to expand civil rights for individuals with disabilities.
To meet the civil legal needs of the poor and vulnerable in our community through effective legal representation and education
To improve lives and provide students with exceptional value in 21st century professional education.
Legal representation, counseling and other civil legal services for the indigent of tennessee
Amistad law project is a public interest law firm and organizing project working to end mass incareration in pennsylvania.
Standing with our neighbors, Lakeshore Legal Aid fights poverty and injustice through advocacy and by providing meaningful and dignified access to the legal system.
Building support for the rights of working people through coalitions of labor and community and through public education.
Provision of legal services.
It is the mission of the pennsylvania district attorneys association to assist the membership in the pursuit of justice and in all matters relating to the execution of their duties; advocate the position of the association to the…
The women's law project creates a more just and equitable society by advancing the rights and status of all women throughout their lives. to this end, we engage in high-impact litigation, advocacy, and education. the core values of the…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Midpenn Legal Services and the most unlike its peers is Drexel University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 44 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% 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 10% 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.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
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
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
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: Philadelphia Bar Foundation · Independence Foundation · The Philadelphia Foundation · Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network Inc · The Patricia Kind Family Foundation · United Way of Greater Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey · Henrietta Tower Wurts Memorial · Henry Dolfinger 2 Trust Uw · Equal Justice Works · Union Benevolent Association · Legal Services Corporation · The Barra Foundation Inc
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.
Every dot is one organisation PENNSYLVANIA INTEREST ON LAWYER 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. 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.
Through Plinth
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: PENNSYLVANIA BAR FOUNDATION.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
~36 months of operating runway; revenue held over 8 filed years.
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
US 501(c)(3); EIN 232303925 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on PENNSYLVANIA BAR FOUNDATION, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
Find your warmest path to Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyer through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.