Skip to content

· Public charity

826 National Inc

826 is the largest youth writing network in the country.

$469k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$69k
Largest
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 2025.

Education$2.7MYouth Development$377kArts & Culture$350k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $439,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $469,270 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $30,270 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $182k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $258k
$49,750
Median grant
8
States reached
$2.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
826 DC$69,000
826 MSP$69,000
826 New Orleans$69,000
826 NYC$50,500
826 Michigan$49,750
826 Boston$34,500
826 LA$34,250
826 CHI$31,500
826 Valencia$31,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 81% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%826 Boston: $55k → 16%826 MSP: $79k → 11%826 Valencia: $49k → 10%826 LA: $66k → 14%826 NYC: $81k → 20%UNT Dallas Foundation: $40k → 14%826 DC: $128k → 14%826 Michigan: $62k → 14%826 CHI: $97k → 14%Big Class: $60k → 23%826 Boston: $39k → 16%826 MSP: $73k → 11%826 Valencia: $43k → 10%826 LA: $57k → 14%826 NYC: $57k → 20%826 DC: $69k → 14%826 Michigan: $50k → 14%826 CHI: $74k → 14%826 New Orleans: $69k → 23%826 Boston: $37k → 16%826 MSP: $69k → 11%826 Valencia: $42k → 10%826 LA: $54k → 14%826 NYC: $51k → 20%826 DC: $42k → 14%826 Michigan: $50k → 14%826 CHI: $52k → 14%826 New Orleans: $65k → 23%826 Boston: $35k → 16%826 MSP: $60k → 11%826 LA: $44k → 14%826 NYC: $37k → 20%826 DC: $38k → 14%826 Michigan: $39k → 14%826 CHI: $38k → 14%826 New Orleans: $55k → 23%826 LA: $39k → 14%826 NYC: $37k → 20%826 DC: $37k → 14%826 Michigan: $35k → 14%826 CHI: $37k → 14%826 New Orleans: $37k → 23%826 LA: $35k → 14%826 NYC: $35k → 20%826 DC: $35k → 14%826 New Orleans: $35k → 23%826 DC: $35k → 14%826 New Orleans: $35k → 23%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
CA
DC
LA
TX
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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.4M · 10 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
0

Total granted

$3.4M
$0

Still filing today

90%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationYouth 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

  • 8I
    826DC INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $446k · revenue +38%
  • 8
    826LA
    9× · 2017–2025 · $390k · revenue +17%
  • 8I
    826NYC Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $389k · revenue +32%

Funded once

    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
    826 National Inc

    826 is the largest youth writing network in the country. 826 National serves as the hub of the movement to amplify student voices and champions the belief that strong writing skills are essential for lifelong success. Founded in 2002, the…

    Education
    2
    LitShop

    LitShop provides after-school and summer programming that pairs engaging literacy opportunities with building and making. By intentionally creating a supportive space where girls and gender-expansive youth can take risks, explore…

    Education
    3
    Chapter 510 Ink

    Chapter 510 is a made-in-Oakland youth writing, bookmaking & publishing center. Our teaching artists and mentors work side by side with educators to provide a safe space and supportive community so Black, brown, & queer youth ages 8-19 can…

    Arts & Culture
    4
    Day Eight

    Day eight contributes to the healing of the world through the arts. our mission is to empower individuals and communities to participate in the arts through the production, publication, and promotion of creative projects.

    Arts & Culture
    5
    916 Ink

    916 ink empowers youth in sacramento through creative writing and literacy workshop, as well as tutoring, aimed at transforming them into proficient readers, confident communicators and published authors.

    Education
    6
    J3 Foundation
    Education
    7
    Uptown Stories Inc

    The organizations mission is to empower young people in upper manhattan to write their own stories.

    Education
    8
    Missoula Writing Collaborative

    We partner with schools and communities to teach the imaginative power of language. We embrace creativity, empowerment, inclusion, and excellence. We build communities of hope and compassion through writing.

    Arts & Culture
    9
    WriteBoston Inc

    See Statement O for description of programs and services.

    Education
    10
    Writing By Writers

    To create a rigorous, compassionate and inclusive environment to learn the art of reading and writing from accomplished authors.

    Education
    11
    Literary Freedom Project Inc

    The Literary Freedom Project creates free, open spaces for communities to engage with books through weekly discussions and presentations. Our programs promote literacy, celebrate the diverse cultures of the Bronx and NYC, and foster…

    Arts & Culture
    12
    Letters 2 Literacy
    Education
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is 826DC Inc; the most unlike its peers is 826 Boston 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

    9 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. 9 of the 10 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)
    3
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    9/9
    Grantees still filing
    7/9
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    826 NEW ORLEANS: $419,492 · Education826 NEW ORLEANS826CHI INC: $417,037 · Education826CHI INC826LA: $390,216 · Education826LA826NYC Inc: $389,202 · Education826NYC Inc826 MSP: $346,066 · Education826 MSP826 BOSTON INC: $319,936 · Education826 BOSTON INC826 Valencia: $297,042 · Education826 Valencia826DC INC: $446,211 · Youth Development826DC INC826 MICHIGAN INC: $364,782 · Other826 MICHIGAN …UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS AT DALLAS FOUNDATION: $50,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF…
    Education$2,578,991Youth Development$446,211Other$414,782

    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 budget826DC INC: $446,211 over 9y, 18% of budget826 NEW ORLEANS: $419,492 over 9y, 21% of budget826CHI INC: $417,037 over 9y, 11% of budget826LA: $390,216 over 9y, 3.4% of budget826NYC Inc: $389,202 over 9y, 5.1% of budget826 MICHIGAN INC: $364,782 over 9y, 9.3% of budget826 MSP: $346,066 over 6y, 17% of budget826 BOSTON INC: $319,936 over 9y, 3.3% of budget826 Valencia: $297,042 over 8y, 1.2% 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.

    • Who funds 826DC INC ↗
    • Who funds 826 NEW ORLEANS ↗
    • Who funds 826CHI INC ↗
    • Who funds 826LA ↗
    • Who funds 826NYC Inc ↗
    • Who funds 826 MICHIGAN INC ↗
    • Who funds 826 MSP ↗
    • Who funds 826 BOSTON INC ↗
    • Who funds 826 Valencia ↗

    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.

    The Hawkins ProjectMI17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: The Hawkins Project · The Apatow-Mann Family Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 826 National Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from 826 National Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

    2025
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
    • 826 Boston Inc: 1% of income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 10 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on 826 National’s filings →

    More from the funding graph