Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

The Institute for Intergovernmental Research Inc

Iir's mission is to respond to the needs of criminal justice agencies across the country through the administration of grant funded programs that have a positive impact on local, state, federal, tribal, and territorial law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.

$4.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
37
Grants FY2025still arriving
20
States reached
$2.5M
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 59% of THE INSTITUTE FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH INC’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.

02FY2025 · 37 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k13 grants · $372k
  • $50k–250k20 grants · $1.9M
  • $250k+1 grant · $2.5M
$54,346
Median grant
20
States reached
$7.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INTEGRATED JUSTICE INFORMATION STSTEMS INSTITUTE INC$2,535,775
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK$185,603
UNIVEERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA$168,183
NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL FUND INC$160,541
RULO STRATEGIES$131,776
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE INCORPORATED$130,822
HAMILTON COUNTY OH$113,188
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES$106,798
SANTA FE COUNTY$104,183
ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN POTENTIAL$91,790
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY$89,661
FELLOWSHIP HOUSE INC$80,566
HARNETT COUNTY$74,986
CITY OF LUBBOCK$73,392
STEVENS COUNTY DBA NORTHEAST WASHINGTON ALLIANCE COUNSELING SERVICES$62,600
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY22–25, $414k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NAWLEE FOUNDATION INC: $18k → 8%CARTER'S CREW: $9k → 17%THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR THE PREVENTION OF COMMUNITY VIOLENCE: $388k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

ME
WA
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
LA
AL
GA
TX
FL

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.

04

Where the work is directed

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

About 20% of The Institute for Intergovernmental Research 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.

The Institute for Intergovernmental Research Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 20% directed abroad (not shown)

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$33M · 79 repeat orgs$4.8M to everyone else

79 repeat relationships — 27 still active in FY2025, 52 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

79
60

Total granted

$33M
$4.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+9%
+39%

Still filing today

33%
8%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $383k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
HealthCrime & LegalHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementEducationSocial ScienceOther

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

  • PS
    PORTER-STARKE SERVICES INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $640k · revenue +23%
  • PH
    Prisma Health-Upstate
    2× · 2022–2023 · $480k · revenue +22%
  • SM
    ST MARY'S REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER
    2× · 2022–2023 · $374k · revenue +12%

Funded once

  • CO
    CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
    one grant, 2023 · $531k
  • ED
    EBCI DIVISION OF COMMERCE
    one grant, 2023 · $474k
  • TN
    THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR THE PREVENTION OF COMMUNITY VIOLENCEgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $388k · revenue +54%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

Founded in 1889, the national association of regulatory utility commisioners (naruc) is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the state public service commisions who regulate the utilities that provide essential services such…

2
National Narcotic Officers Associations

The association actively researches, monitors, and supports legislation designed to increase the effectiveness or narcotic enforrcement

Community Improvement
3
The National Association of State Workforce Agencies

The national association of state workforce agencies (naswa) mission is to enhance the state workforce agencies' ability to accomplish their goals, statutory roles and responsibilities.

4
National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships Inc

Advancing a national community to foster equity in dual and concurrent enrollment through accreditation, advocacy, research, and professional development.

Education
5
University of Maryland Anesthesiology Associates Pa

Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…

6
Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States Inc

The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…

Health
7
Public Responsibility in Medicine & Research Inc

Prim&r advances the highest ethical standards in the conduct of biomedical, behavioral and social science research. prim&r accomplishes this mission through education, membership services, professional certification, public policy…

Health
8
National Association of College and University Attorneys

To advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.

9
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors

The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) is organized to reflect and advocate for the collective interest of state mental health authorities and their directors at the national level. NASMHPD analyzes…

Health
10
Search Group Incorporated

Search is dedicated to improving the quality of justice and public safety through the use, management, and exchange of information, application of new technologies, and responsible law and policy, while safeguarding security and privacy.

Crime & Legal
11
University of Maryland Neurosurgeryassociates Pa

Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…

Education
12
University of Maryland Neurology Associates Pa

Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Policing Institute and the most unlike its peers is Coastlands Ministries. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyVolunteer Fire & Ems Servic…Community College Foundatio…Policy Research and AdvocacyCommunity FoundationsAddiction Recovery ServicesHealth Access Advocacy and …
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 37 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%0%<5yr14%11%5–10yr19%20%10–20yr16%17%20–35yr13%23%35–55yr16%29%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%1%5–10yr19%11%10–20yr16%63%20–35yr13%13%35–55yr16%12%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/149
the rest of the field
13%
240,396/1,819,416

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.

05the grantee network

36 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 36 of the 149 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
36/36
Grantees still filing
20/36
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN POTENTIAL — $1,394,230 · OtherADVOCATES FOR HUMAN POTENTIALUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK — $1,311,398 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK+121 more — $19,713,114 · Other+121 moreIntegrated Justice Information Systems Institute Inc — $10,028,314 · Crime & LegalIntegrated Justice Information…+5 more — $142,117 · Crime & LegalPORTER-STARKE SERVICES INC — $640,137 · HealthPORTER-ST…Prisma Health-Upstate — $480,226 · HealthPrisma He…ST MARY'S REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER — $374,409 · HealthST MARY'S…WESTCARE TENNESSEE INC — $358,999 · HealthWESTCARE …ARKANSAS RURAL HEALTH PARTNERSHIP INC — $329,332 · HealthARKANSAS …SMA HEALTHCARE INC — $313,209 · HealthSMA HEALT…MSTEPP INC — $273,274 · HealthMSTEPP IN…WESTCHESTER-ELLENVILLE HOSPITAL INC — $218,925 · HealthWESTCHEST…AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SUICIDOLOGY — $170,188 · HealthAMERICAN …National District Attorneys Association — $344,091 · Community ImprovementMARSHALL UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION — $344,041 · Community Improvement+1 more — $18,486 · Community ImprovementTHE NATIONAL CENTER FOR THE PREVENTION OF COMMUNITY VIOLENCE — $387,511 · Human ServicesNAWLEE Foundation Inc — $17,630 · Human Services+1 more — $8,784 · Human ServicesTHE URBAN INSTITUTE — $301,642 · Social ScienceNATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER — $59,710 · Social ScienceUniversity of Kentucky Research Foundation — $99,357 · EducationJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY — $89,661 · EducationTHE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC — $64,437 · Education
Other$22,418,742Crime & Legal$10,170,431Health$3,158,699Community Improvement$706,618Human Services$413,925Social Science$361,352Education$253,455

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetIntegrated Justice Information Systems Institute Inc — $10,028,314 over 4y, 50% of budgetPORTER-STARKE SERVICES INC — $640,137 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetPrisma Health-Upstate — $480,226 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL FUND INC — $414,316 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetST MARY'S REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER — $374,409 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE — $360,295 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetWESTCARE TENNESSEE INC — $358,999 over 2y, 12% of budgetNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES — $346,762 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetNational District Attorneys Association — $344,091 over 4y, 3.3% of budgetMARSHALL UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION — $344,041 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetARKANSAS RURAL HEALTH PARTNERSHIP INC — $329,332 over 2y, 5.0% of budgetSMA HEALTHCARE INC — $313,209 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTHE URBAN INSTITUTE — $301,642 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetMSTEPP INC — $273,274 over 2y, 58% of budgetNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES RESEARCH FOUNDATION — $261,634 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetCoastlands Ministries — $230,046 over 2y, 15% of budgetWESTCHESTER-ELLENVILLE HOSPITAL INC — $218,925 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SUICIDOLOGY — $170,188 over 2y, 6.7% of budgetFELLOWSHIP HOUSE INC — $154,453 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetNATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION — $110,535 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetUniversity of Kentucky Research Foundation — $99,357 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL POLICING INSTITUTE — $95,247 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY — $89,661 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOne Voice United Inc — $77,036 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetTHE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC — $64,437 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER — $59,710 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS & PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATION — $42,583 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetCOUNCIL ON ADDICTION PREVENTION AND EDUCATION OF DUTCHESS COUNTY INC — $38,597 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetSOUTHWESTERN BORDER SHERIFFS' COALITION — $27,731 over 1y, 20% of budgetCOUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS — $27,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetMAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION — $26,905 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCOLLABORATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES — $6,301 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
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 Integrated Justice Information Systems Institute Inc
  • Who funds PORTER-STARKE SERVICES INC
  • Who funds Prisma Health-Upstate
  • Who funds NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL FUND INC
  • Who funds THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR THE PREVENTION OF COMMUNITY VIOLENCE
  • Who funds ST MARY'S REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
  • Who funds WESTCARE TENNESSEE INC
  • Who funds NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES
  • Who funds National District Attorneys Association
  • Who funds MARSHALL UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION
  • Who funds ARKANSAS RURAL HEALTH PARTNERSHIP INC
  • Who funds SMA HEALTHCARE INC
  • Who funds THE URBAN INSTITUTE
  • Who funds MSTEPP 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.

Center for Technology and Civic LifeIL29.7× affinity22 shared granteesties to 9 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Center for Technology and Civic Life · Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Inc · American Public Health Association · American Bar Association · National Environmental Health Association · National Recreation and Park Association · North American Association of Central Cancer Registries · National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Inc · Association of Public Health Laboratories Inc · Investor Protection Trust · Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs · Association of State and Territorial Health Officials

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 The Institute for Intergovernmental Research 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University12% of income from government
  • Sma Healthcare Inc8% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
6report 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, FY2025

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 149 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph