Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Public charity

National Redistricting Action Fund

The NATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND seeks to raise awareness of racial and partisan gerrymandering through advocacy and educational means.

$1.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2025.

Public Benefit$28MCivil Rights$1.7MHealth$420kHuman Services$250kCommunity Improvement$108k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$1,000,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OHIO PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE$1,000,000
NORTH CAROLINA FAMILIES FIRST$550,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 99% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%RepresentUS: $25k → 12%Tides Advocacy: $50k → 10%Center for Popular Democracy: $50k → 20%CENTER FOR CIVIC ACTION: $1.7M → 14%COLLECTIVE FUTURE: $10k → 14%Equal Ground Education Fund: $8k → 13%Florida Democratic Legislative Campaign C: $10k → 19%Count Vote dba Voters Not Politicians: $250k → 16%ALABAMA HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS INC: $25k → 18%KANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE: $25k → 15%Together Wisconsin Acts: $420k → 17%THE EQUITY ALLAINCE: $40k → 14%THE DEMOCRACY PROJECT II: $50k → 8%Democratic Party of Georgia: $10k → 13%Fair Maps Colorado: $50k → 12%OHIO PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE: $1.0M → 15%Ohio Organizing Campaign: $50k → 19%Nevada Families First: $250k → 13%Maine Democratic State Committee: $25k → 12%End Citizens UnitedLet America Vote: $12.8M → 14%FLORIDIAN DEMOCRACY PROJECT: $30k → 13%Kansas Values Institute: $20k → 15%Democratic Party of Georgia Victory 2018: $100k → 13%END CITIZENS UNITED: $11.0M → 14%Democratic Party of GA Senate Majority: $10k → 13%A Stronger Wisconsin: $250k → 14%American Leadership Committee: $50k → 14%Wavelength Strategy Inc: $1.2M → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $76k → 14%America Votes: $60k → 14%America Votes: $60k → 14%Center for Voter Information: $58k → 14%America Votes: $10k → 14%Hilltop Public Solutions LLC: $88k → 14%BALLOT INITIATIVE STRATEGY CENTER: $5k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

ME
WI
MI
NY
MA
NV
IA
OH
CA
CO
NM
KS
TN
NC
DC
LA
AL
GA
FL

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$24M · 3 repeat orgs$6.7M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +426% since the first grant, against +41% for the ones you funded once.

3 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
27

Total granted

$24M
$5.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+426%
+41%

Still filing today

100%
52%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.6M went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’25
Civil RightsPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementHealthOther

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

  • EC
    END CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUND
    2× · 2021–2022 · $24M · revenue -95% · 46% of their budget
  • AV
    America Votes
    4× · 2019–2022 · $206k · revenue +495%
  • KV
    KANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE
    2× · 2021–2023 · $45k · revenue +426%

Funded once

  • CF
    CENTER FOR CIVIC ACTION
    one grant, 2022 · $1.7M · revenue -36% · 75% of their budget
  • WS
    Wavelength Strategy Inc
    one grant, 2021 · $1.2M
  • TW
    TOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $420k · revenue +369% · 35% of their budget

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Coalition for Dc Representation in Congress Education Fund

Founded in 1998, dc vote is a national citizen engagement and advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening democracy and securing equality for all in the district of columbia.

Education
2
People's Independent Commission

Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay

—
3
Secure Democracy Usa

Secure Democracy USA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to build stronger elections, state by state.

Civil Rights
4
Guarantee Our Votes Project

Protect voting rights in the united states for all citizens and expand voting rights to citizens who have been historically disenfranchised or under-represented in the electoral process.

Civil Rights
5
Fair Democracy

Fair democracy works to ensure that the roots of american democracy are healthy with strong voting rights and access, an engaged and informed electorate, an open and accountable government and trusted messengers engaging americans in civil…

Civil Rights
6
Transparent Elections for Grassroots Engagement 1

Support state initative petition

—
7
Right Vote Inc
Civil Rights
8
Keystone Democracy

Keystone Democracy's goal is to ensure that all Pennsylvania elections are implemented in a safe, secure, convenient and fair manner. We work to advance pro-democracy policies by informing elected officials, civic leaders, the media, and…

—
9
Commission On Presidential Debates

Organize general election presidential and vice-presidential debates

Civil Rights
10
Send the Vote Inc

Conduct digital, direct mail and other public communication campaigns to support voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.

—
11
Democracy Works Inc

The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.

Civil Rights
12
Power Coalition for Electoral Justice

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…

Civil Rights

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Ohio Organizing Campaign and the most unlike its peers is Progress Iowa. 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

21 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. 21 of the 32 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/21
Grantees still filing
13/21
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

END CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUND — $23,767,464 · Civil RightsEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUNDCENTER FOR CIVIC ACTION — $1,657,000 · Civil RightsCENTER FOR CIVIC ACTION+5 more — $406,050 · Civil RightsWavelength Strategy Inc — $1,200,000 · OtherWavelength Str…Ohio Progressive Collaborative — $1,000,000 · OtherOhio Progressi…North Carolina Families First — $550,000 · OtherNorth Carolina…SDCC Victory — $300,000 · OtherSDCC VictoryNevada Families First — $250,000 · OtherNevada Familie…A Stronger Wisconsin — $250,000 · OtherA Stronger Wis…+12 more — $473,010 · Other+12 moreTOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INC — $420,000 · HealthAmerica Votes — $206,000 · Community ImprovementKANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE — $45,000 · Community ImprovementDEMOCRACY PROJECT II — $50,000 · Public BenefitCENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC — $50,000 · Public BenefitALABAMA HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS — $25,000 · Public BenefitRepresentUs — $25,000 · Public Benefit
Civil Rights$25,830,514Other$4,023,010Health$420,000Community Improvement$251,000Public Benefit$150,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUND — $23,767,464 over 2y, 46% of budgetCENTER FOR CIVIC ACTION — $1,657,000 over 1y, 75% of budgetTOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INC — $420,000 over 1y, 35% of budgetCOUNT MI VOTE — $250,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetAmerica Votes — $206,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION — $58,050 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY — $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE OHIO ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN — $50,000 over 1y, 21% of budgetCENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC — $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetKANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE — $45,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetFLORIDIANS DEMOCRACY PROJECT INC — $30,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetCOLORADO COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK ACTION — $25,000 over 1y, 24% of budgetALABAMA HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS — $25,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetRepresentUs — $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetPROGRESS IOWA — $10,010 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetEQUAL GROUND EDUCATION FUND INC — $8,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetBALLOT INITIATIVE STRATEGY CENTER INC — $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budget
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.

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.

Sixteen Thirty FundAmerica VotesNorth FundAmerican Federation o…Tides AdvocacyState Democracy Actio…Pro-Democracy CampaignStrategic Victory FundGreen Advocacy ProjectWay to Win Action Fun…Open Society Action F…Tides Foundation
Sixteen Thirty FundDC29.1× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · America Votes · North Fund · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees · Tides Advocacy · State Democracy Action Fund · Pro-Democracy Campaign · Strategic Victory Fund · Green Advocacy Project · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Tides Foundation

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 Redistricting Action Fund 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to National Redistricting Action Fund?

    Find your warmest path to National Redistricting Action Fund through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 32 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home
    State money flows
    the interactive map of money crossing state lines