AN INDEPENDENT, NONPROFIT RESEARCH INSTITUTIONFOUNDED 2026 · ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Institute for Jurisprudence, Policy, and Data on Religious Freedom
Contact

Reach the Institute

The instruments on this site are free to adopt without asking. For everything else, write to us.

General inquiries

info@[domain].org
Arlington, Virginia

Grantmakers & research partners

The Institute welcomes conversations with philanthropic funders and research institutions whose programs align with open legal infrastructure, religious-freedom data, or evidence-based governance. Partnership never alters the Founding Commitments: outputs remain standardized, open at the core, and identical for every reader.

Questions

Frequently asked

Does the Institute provide legal advice?

No. The Institute is a research institution. Its publications and tools are reference materials — the same for every reader — and nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates any professional relationship. Institutions facing a specific legal question should consult licensed counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Can our organization commission a report or engage the Institute?

No — and this is by design, not capacity. The Institute's governing documents bar all commissioned, client-specific, or bespoke work, because standardized public instruments serve the country in a way private engagements cannot. Every framework, dataset, and model policy here is free to adopt; the Monitor's full volumes are available to any institutional subscriber at the same published rates.

How is a free-at-the-core model sustainable?

On the model proven by nonprofit research publishers for decades: philanthropic support for the open core, plus program-related revenue from standardized publications at uniform rates, with all proceeds reinvested. Free legal-information infrastructure has operated sustainably in the United States since 1992.

Does the Institute take sides on contested questions?

The Institute documents the law, publishes verified data, and builds instruments that institutions across the spectrum can adopt. Where authorities conflict, we say so and cite both. Where the data are insufficient, we abstain. Neutrality here is a method, not a slogan.