Skip to content
National Redistricting Action Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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 it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$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

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

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

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

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +426% since the first grant, against +15% for those 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%
+15%

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
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

  • 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
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
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
Transparent Elections for Grassroots Engagement 1

Support state initative petition

—
6
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
7
Commission On Presidential Debates

Organize general election presidential and vice-presidential debates

Civil Rights
8
Right Vote Inc
Civil Rights
9
Send the Vote Inc

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

—
10
Democracy Works Inc

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

Civil Rights
11
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…

—
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Ohio Organizing Campaign; 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 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. 21 of the 32 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/21
Grantees still filing
13/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 BenefitRepresentUs: $25,000 · Public BenefitALABAMA HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS: $25,000 · Public Benefit
Civil Rights$25,830,514Other$4,023,010Health$420,000Community Improvement$251,000Public Benefit$150,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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 budgetRepresentUs: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetALABAMA HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS: $25,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetCOLORADO COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK ACTION: $25,000 over 1y, 24% 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
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.

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.

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

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 National Redistricting Action Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Redistricting Action Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's 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
    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.
    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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 32 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 National Redistricting Action’s filings →

    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 endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home