· Public charity
National Federation of Independent Business Inc
Please see schedule o
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 5 grants below total $560,111 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $572,487 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $12,376 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $45k
- $250k+1 grant · $508k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NFIB THE VOICE OF FREE ENTERPRISE INC | $508,444 |
| SC COALITION FOR LAWSUIT REFORM | $20,000 |
| REPUBLICAN STATE LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE | $15,000 |
| GEORGIANS FIRST LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE | $10,000 |
| REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION | $6,667 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 98% of your 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +466% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k 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
- NTNFIB THE VOICE OF FREE ENTERPRISE INC9× · 2017–2025 · $2.3M · revenue +79% · 65% of their budget
- OFOHIOANS FOR A HEALTHY ECONOMY INC2× · 2018–2019 · $75k · revenue +466%
- JAJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF MIDDLE TN7× · 2017–2024 · $35k · revenue +37%
Funded once
- NYNFIB YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $77k · 48% of their budget
- ALAMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCILgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $30k · revenue +37%
- OWOhio Worksone grant, 2024 · $25k
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.
To harness the collective expertise of ohio's ceos to advocate for policies that improve ohio's economic competitiveness.
As the state's leading business advocate and resource, the ohio chamber of commerce aggressively champions free enterprise, economic competitiveness and growth for the benefit of all ohioans.
The minnesota chamber of commerce proactively leads the business community statewide to: advance pro-business, responsible minnesota public policy that creates jobs and grows the econony; provde member services to address evolving business…
Collective bargaining and representation
Represent members and cal employers to members of cal legislature and other agencies of state government through in-house legislative analysts, lobbying staff, and contract lobbyists. cal chamber publishes books and software related to…
Multi-sector, multi-state voice of business advocating on 5 key policies pillars.
To develop and advocate for legislation, regulations, ballot initiatives, and government programs as a voice of the working class, to promote social justice, and to stimulate the economy; and, to conduct research, educate the public, and…
To promote economic development, job creation, job retention, job training, workforce development, and the retention of current and recruitment of new business to ohio.
Chamber's mission: design and advance opportunities and solutions for a thriving regional economy that are inclusive and globally competitive. 1) advocacy - be a bold advocate for business as a driver of a strong economy that enables…
Creating powerful advocacy to enhance economic vitality in the minneapolis-st. paul region.
To create and sustain an optimal business climate, business prosperity and a strong montana economy through advocacy, education and collaboration, working to provide an empowered and educated workforce, reduce business growth obstacles,…
To promote conditions favorable to job creation and business success in michigan.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nfib the Voice of Free Enterprise Inc and the most unlike its peers is Californians Against Job Losses and Higher Prices. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 17 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 NFIB THE VOICE OF FREE ENTERPRISE INC ↗
- Who funds NFIB YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OHIOANS FOR A HEALTHY ECONOMY INC ↗
- Who funds JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF MIDDLE TN ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds COALITION OF MINNESOTA BUSINESSES ↗
- Who funds Ohio Works ↗
- Who funds BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds JEFFERSONIAN PROJECT ↗
- Who funds SMALL BUSINESS FOR A BETTER MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds A TAX IS A TAX COMMITTEE ↗
- Who funds THE ORRIN G HATCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Californians Against Job Losses and Higher Prices ↗
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: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America · The Concord Fund
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 National Federation of Independent Business Inc 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.
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.