public-policy research organization

Frontier Group

A research and policy center producing reports on environment, public health, consumer rights, democracy, transportation, waste, and related issues. Frontier Group scores in the middle because research can inform public accountability, but its agenda and leadership are embedded in The Public Interest Network rather than governed by a broad public or worker constituency.

Why this matters: Frontier Group is the research layer of the ecosystem, so it should not be scored as if reports were neutral infrastructure detached from advocacy strategy.

Letter grade D Extractive High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Parent / owner: The Public Interest Network Last reviewed May 12, 2026

The Public Interest Network lists Frontier Group as a network group, and Frontier Group staff materials identify Public Interest Network roles.

Final Score 29* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE29 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material33

Bonus+4

Cap41Ownership <= 4 and Governance <= 4

After Cap37

Penalties-8

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Owned by The Public Interest Network

The parent profile is currently rated D (Extractive, 28*). This subsidiary is not mechanically capped at the parent score, but parent control is part of the ownership, governance, policy, accountability opacity, reversibility, and harm analysis.

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Solidarity with the Unemployed, with the largest penalty coming from Policy Capture.

Strengths

Solidarity with the Unemployed5/7
Extraction4/10
Loss-Bearing Fidelity4/7

Penalties

Policy Capture-2
Accountability Opacity-2
Ideological Disavowal-2
Youth Capture-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims18
Direct axis claims18
Coverage18/18

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	3 / 10	Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. On Ownership, Frontier Group sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	3 / 10	Frontier Group's linked public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. Frontier Group's linked public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. On Governance, Frontier Group sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	4 / 10	Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. On Extraction, Frontier Group sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	3 / 7	Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. On Labor Sovereignty, Frontier Group sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	5 / 7	Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, Frontier Group belongs above ordinary private activist contractors because the work can produce public goods and sometimes equips people to oppose stronger institutions. It remains below democratic cooperatives or community-governed public infrastructure because ordinary constituents do not hold binding control. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	4 / 7	Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, Frontier Group sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	3 / 5	Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. On Market Conduct, Frontier Group sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	4 / 5	Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. On Product Integrity, Frontier Group sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. On Scale Integrity, Frontier Group sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-2	Frontier Group's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules. Frontier Group's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules. This creates a Policy Capture penalty because even public-interest lobbying is an attempt by a private institution to bend public rules. The penalty is heaviest for electoral and campaign machinery, lighter where the work mainly checks stronger private power. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules. [14]
Youth Capture ? Manipulative youth-directed marketing, youth-data or attention monetization, collectible/add-on traps, parasocial or identity capture, surprise mechanics, or treating young people as lower-disclosure consumers. Making useful toys or welcoming children is not itself penalized. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Frontier Group's model recruits, trains, bills, or mobilizes students and young organizers, making youth-culture and early-career capture a direct axis-specific concern. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's model recruits, trains, bills, or mobilizes students and young organizers, making youth-culture and early-career capture a direct axis-specific concern. [15]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Frontier Group's public materials do not give a complete plain-language map of governance control, related entities, fund flows, staff power, and constituent consent. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's public materials do not give a complete plain-language map of governance control, related entities, fund flows, staff power, and constituent consent. [16]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	Frontier Group's mission framing can bind staff, students, donors, and volunteers to a moralized activist identity as well as to specific practical public goals. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's mission framing can bind staff, students, donors, and volunteers to a moralized activist identity as well as to specific practical public goals. [17]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Frontier Group's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint. Frontier Group's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint. This creates a Ideological Disavowal penalty because the problem is not having progressive politics; the problem is presenting contested ideology as neutral public interest or simple decency while exercising institutional power. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint. [18]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Openness to Dissent ? Credit for tolerating internal, user, customer, worker, and public dissent without retaliation, capture, or viewpoint laundering.	1 / 3	Frontier Group's advocacy challenges corporate, governmental, or institutional power in public policy disputes, which can create some civic space for dissent. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's advocacy challenges corporate, governmental, or institutional power in public policy disputes, which can create some civic space for dissent. [10]
Constitutional Spirit ? Credit for respecting constitutional rights and civil-liberties norms even where private law does not strictly require it.	1 / 3	Frontier Group's work uses research, litigation, public education, policy advocacy, or electoral engagement to contest stronger institutions through civic channels. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's work uses research, litigation, public education, policy advocacy, or electoral engagement to contest stronger institutions through civic channels. [11]
Good Deal ? Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.	1 / 3	Frontier Group's public-facing work can give people research, organizing help, consumer protection, environmental benefit, or civic capacity without ordinary purchase lock-in. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's public-facing work can give people research, organizing help, consumer protection, environmental benefit, or civic capacity without ordinary purchase lock-in. [12]
Cost Transparency ? Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.	1 / 3	Frontier Group's nonprofit status, public web materials, annual-report materials, or fee disclosures give some but incomplete transparency into the cost of its work. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Frontier Group's nonprofit status, public web materials, annual-report materials, or fee disclosures give some but incomplete transparency into the cost of its work. [13]

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 80/100

18 verified linked claims 18 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 18/18 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

18 verified linked claims

Source quality 12/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

18 direct claims across 18 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

18/18 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Frontier Group's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

2Frontier Group's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities.

Governance Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

3Frontier Group's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

4Frontier Group's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

The Public Interest Network groupsGeneral web source · 58%

5Frontier Group's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

6Frontier Group's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

7Frontier Group's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

The Public Interest Network groupsGeneral web source · 58%

8Frontier Group's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

9Frontier Group's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both.

Scale Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

The Public Interest Network groupsGeneral web source · 58%

10Frontier Group's advocacy challenges corporate, governmental, or institutional power in public policy disputes, which can create some civic space for dissent.

Openness To Dissent Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

11Frontier Group's work uses research, litigation, public education, policy advocacy, or electoral engagement to contest stronger institutions through civic channels.

Constitutional Spirit Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

12Frontier Group's public-facing work can give people research, organizing help, consumer protection, environmental benefit, or civic capacity without ordinary purchase lock-in.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

13Frontier Group's nonprofit status, public web materials, annual-report materials, or fee disclosures give some but incomplete transparency into the cost of its work.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

14Frontier Group's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules.

Policy Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

15Frontier Group's model recruits, trains, bills, or mobilizes students and young organizers, making youth-culture and early-career capture a direct axis-specific concern.

Youth Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

16Frontier Group's public materials do not give a complete plain-language map of governance control, related entities, fund flows, staff power, and constituent consent.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

The Public Interest Network groupsGeneral web source · 58%

17Frontier Group's mission framing can bind staff, students, donors, and volunteers to a moralized activist identity as well as to specific practical public goals.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

18Frontier Group's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Frontier Group aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD58 GiveWell charity evaluator · same market AGOOD55 CharityWatch charity watchdog · same market AGOOD55 FairTest nonprofit standardized-testing watchdog · same market AGOOD55 Protect Borrowers / Student Borrower Protection Center nonprofit student-loan borrower advocacy organization · same market AGOOD52 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau federal consumer-finance watchdog agency · same market AGOOD51 National Association of Community Health Centers nonprofit community-health-center advocacy organization · same market BQUALIFIED48 BBB Wise Giving Alliance charity watchdog · same market BQUALIFIED44 Candid / GuideStar nonprofit transparency platform · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Frontier Group Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log