Skip to content
The Johnson County Bar Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Johnson County Bar Foundation

The mission of The Johnson County Bar Foundation is to promote, on behalf of the legal profession, good works which advance the local system of justice as well as support children and family related charities and organizations.

$46k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$16k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Crime & Legal$35kYouth Development$27kHuman Services$27kHealth$23kEducation$13kEmployment$8k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $33,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $46,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $12,500 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $26k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$890k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
The Layne Project$16,000
Hope Kids Kansas City$10,000
Giving the Basics Inc$7,500
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–23, $11k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Kansas Childrens Service League: $6k → 16%Kansas Childrens Service League: $5k → 16%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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

51%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$68k · 5 repeat orgs$64k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +15% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
4

Total granted

$68k
$38k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+15%
+1%

Still filing today

100%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 22% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $26k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthCrime & LegalEducationHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • KL
    KANSAS LEGAL SERVICES INC
    2× · 2017–2023 · $16k · revenue +49%
  • NI
    NCircle Inc
    2× · 2020–2022 · $15k · revenue +698%
  • GT
    GIVING THE BASICS INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $13k · revenue +15%

Funded once

  • YC
    YOUTHRIVE CORPORATION
    one grant, 2018 · $14k · revenue -40%
  • KC
    KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN CRIME COMMISSIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $11k · revenue +86%
  • BH
    BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE
    one grant, 2019 · $9k · revenue -13%
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
Kansas Children's Discovery Center Inc

The kansas children's discovery center enhances the lives of children and enriches the communities it serves.

Arts & Culture
2
Kansas Children's Service League Foundation

To protect and promote the well-being of children by providing ongoing support of the charitable mission of the kansas children's service league.

Philanthropy
3
Kansas Children's Foundation

The kansas children's foundation is dedicated to providing resources including financial and emotional support to children and families across the state of kansas.

Health
4
Kansas Action for Children Inc

Kansas action for children, inc. is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to shaping health, education and economic policy that improves the lives of kansas children and their families.

Human Services
5
Kansas Insurance & Financial Services Education Foundation
Education
6
The Hope Center Inc

To provided asset based progras, and opportunities for sustainable growth and development, where children, youth, and families can flourish in Kansas City east side. Our vision is to develop healthy communities where the vulnerable can…

Human Services
7
Kids Win Missouri

Kids Win Missouri furthers child well-being by advancing the health, education, safety and development of Missouri children and their families, especially those who are at-risk because of poverty, abuse, neglect, racial inequities or other…

Human Services
8
Kansas City Dream Center Co

The Kansas City Dream Center connects people in need to a community of support by offering free resources and services that address immediate and long-term needs in the areas of abuse, addiction, education, homelessness and poverty.

Housing & Shelter
9
Greater Kc Linc Inc

To provide leadership and influence to engage the kansas city, missouri community as well as the surrounding communities in creating the best service delivery system to support and strengthen children, families and individuals, holding…

Human Services
10
Boys Club of Greater Kansas City

The organization promotes the personal development of boys and girls ages 5-18, with special concern for the disadvantaged by providing services that build self-esteem, values and skills during critical periods of growth.

Youth Development
11
Kansas Family Partnership Inc

To promote positive youth behaviors by supporting diverse kansas families and communities through education, networking, and advocacy.

—
12
Children's Alliance of Kansas

To promote the success and influence of its member agencies to assure comprehensive, relevant and effective services in a fully integrated public private network that protects and strengthens the welfare of children and families in kansas.…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kansas Childrens Service League; the most unlike its peers is NCircle Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 11 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)
8/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KANSAS LEGAL SERVICES INC: $16,300 · OtherKANSAS LEGAL SERVICES INCThe Layne Project: $16,000 · OtherThe Layne ProjectYOUTHRIVE CORPORATION: $13,800 · OtherYOUTHRIVE CORPORATIONGIVING THE BASICS INC: $13,250 · OtherGIVING THE BASICS INCKANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN CRIME COMMISSION: $10,860 · OtherKANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN CRIME COMMISSIONLOVE FUND FOR CHILDREN INC: $5,000 · OtherLOVE FUND FOR CHILDREN INCNCircle Inc: $15,000 · Crime & LegalNCircle IncWONDERSCOPE INC: $12,500 · EducationWONDERSCOP…KANSAS CHILDRENS SERVICE LEAGUE: $10,750 · Human ServicesKANSAS CH…HOPEKIDS INC: $10,000 · HealthBOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE: $8,500 · Youth Development
Other$75,210Crime & Legal$15,000Education$12,500Human Services$10,750Health$10,000Youth Development$8,500

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetKANSAS LEGAL SERVICES INC: $16,300 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetNCircle Inc: $15,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetGIVING THE BASICS INC: $13,250 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWONDERSCOPE INC: $12,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetKANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN CRIME COMMISSION: $10,860 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetKANSAS CHILDRENS SERVICE LEAGUE: $10,750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHOPEKIDS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE: $8,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLOVE FUND FOR CHILDREN INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.0% 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.

Greater Kansas City C…American Online Givin…Natl Christian Charit…Amazonsmile Foundation
Greater Kansas City Community FoundationMO15.1× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Kansas City Community Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 The Johnson County Bar Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Johnson County Bar Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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.

    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 11 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 Johnson County Bar’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