· Public charity
Civic Nation
Civic Nation uses organizing, engagement, and public awareness to address some of the nation's most pressing challenges.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 93 grants below total $1,682,686 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $2,763,559 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,080,873 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k29 grants · $217k
- $10k–50k54 grants · $818k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $648k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| End Rape On Campus | $123,187 |
| Iota Phi Theta Foundation Inc | $67,500 |
| Student Debt Crisis Center | $62,000 |
| Unifour One | $60,000 |
| The Sixth Episcopal District AME Church | $60,000 |
| Rise Education Fund Marypatricia Hector | $58,500 |
| Just Harvest Education Fund | $58,333 |
| Asian Community Development Council | $58,333 |
| The Uma Center Inc | $50,000 |
| HOLA Ohio | $50,000 |
| Thredz | $40,000 |
| BlackPush Inc | $40,000 |
| Soul Food CDC Unity in the Community | $35,000 |
| Welcome America Inc | $35,000 |
| North Carolina Black Alliance | $27,500 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $551k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 90% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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
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.
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.
38 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2024, 22 since wound down; 77 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 40% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.0M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
CIVIC TN3× · 2021–2023 · $600k · revenue +52% · 50% of their budget- ACASIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL4× · 2021–2024 · $308k · revenue +131%
- YIYOUNG INVINCIBLES3× · 2018–2024 · $198k · revenue +1%
Funded once
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $500k · revenue +26%- SVSTATE VOICESgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $352k · revenue +94%
BLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINAone grant, 2018 · $315k · revenue -23%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
It is the mission of APIAVote to encourage and promote civic participation of Asian Pacific Islander Americans in the electoral and public processes at the national, state, and local levels. APIAVote also aims to educate and inform Asian…
Colorofchange.org works to strengthen the voice of black americans and increase the level of accountability and responsiveness of elected officials to underrepresented black constituencies using the internet as a lobbying and…
Bold Impact is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting a democracy where all communities get to thrive.
Action institute nc is a community organization and citizens action group that organizes residents of low-wealth communities and constituencies most of whom are people of color- to represent their own interests on issues of social and…
We created the power coalition for electoral justice with our partners because this is a moment of opportunity; a time to dig in and become internationally strategic; in short, to use this movement to create a true paradigm shift. to plant…
Jolt Initiative is a non-profit organization that increases the civic participation of Latinos in Texas to build a stronger democracy and ensure that everyone's voice is heard.
The climate equity action fund (ceaf) works hand-in-hand with community-based partners in critical states across the country to secure and sustain policy wins for climate and clean energy. building on over a decade of trust with leading…
Color of change.org education fund exists to empower our members - black americans and our allies to make decision makers more responsive to the concerns of black americans and to bring about positive social change for everyone.
AAPIP expands and mobilizes resources for AAPI communities to build a more just and equitable society.
New Virginia Majority Education Fund is a grassroots organization that engages low income people and people of color in local communities through leadership development, trainings and workshops, issue education through grassroots…
Our goal is to increase power in our communities through effective voting. We increase voter registration and help develop voting infrastructure and to pursue policies that expands access to the ballot.
We activate community power to redesign social systems to be just and equitable for all through (1) developing and supporting leaders and organizations and (2) leading campaigns, coalitions, and innovative initiatives.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Naacp Empowerment Programs Inc and the most unlike its peers is Deltas of Charlotte Inc. 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.
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 14 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 14% of your grantees by number, and just 8% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
134 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 134 of the 186 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 CIVIC TN ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds FLORIDA RISING TOGETHER INC ↗
- Who funds STATE VOICES ↗
- Who funds BLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA ↗
- Who funds ASIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds NC COUNTS COALITION ↗
- Who funds LA UNION DEL PUEBLO ENTERO ↗
- Who funds MI FAMILIA EN ACCION ↗
- Who funds ONE ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds PROYECTO VIDA DIGNA ↗
- Who funds Border Network for Human Rights ↗
- Who funds YOUNG INVINCIBLES ↗
- Who funds POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds Greater Birmingham Ministries ↗
- Who funds RISE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds NONPROFIT LEGAL SERVICES OF UTAH ↗
- Who funds FAITH IN PUBLIC LIFE INC ↗
- Who funds UNIFOUR ONE INC ↗
- Who funds URBAN AFFAIRS COALITION ↗
- Who funds ARKANSAS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds HOLA OHIO ↗
- Who funds END RAPE ON CAMPUS ↗
- Who funds Ohio Womens Alliance ↗
- Who funds Southern Echo Inc ↗
- Who funds NAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INC ↗
- Who funds Virginia Civic Engagement Table ↗
- Who funds SOUTH DAKOTA VOICES FOR PEACE ↗
- Who funds International Mayan League ↗
- Who funds DETROIT CHANGE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ↗
- Who funds PROMISE ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds GENTE DE VENEZUELA ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY ↗
- Who funds JUST HARVEST EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA COALITION FOR CHANGE ↗
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.
Open a dossier: NEO Philanthropy Inc · New Venture Fund · Voter Registration Project · Tides Foundation · Bvm Capacity Building Institute Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Way to Rise · Windward Fund · State Voices · The Ford Foundation · Clean and Prosperous America · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc
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 Civic Nation 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.
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Campus Compact — 1% of income from government
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.