Loading…
· Public charity
NATIONAL REDISTRICTING FOUNDATION
The NATIONAL REDISTRICTING FOUNDATION seeks to oppose racial and partisan gerrymandering through litigation and public education continued on schedule o.
$50k
Granted FY2024
1
Grants
1
Communities
$50k
Largest
01What you fund
0193% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2024.
Civil Rights$1.9MPublic Benefit$300kEducation$30kEnvironment$10kOther$175k
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2019
see part
2021
issue advocacy
2022
—
2023
rightmeans
2024
committedgains
2025
social
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 1 grant
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
- NEVADA ALLIANCE$50,000
02The need
04
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 (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 11%. 98% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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 line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your 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
Protect Colorados Vote
To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact
—
2
Texas Justice Fund
To support legal, political & administrative efforts to protect fair voting.
—
3
National Endowment for Democracy
Ned has a singular mission - advancing democracy in support of freedom around the world. our targeted, demand-driven small grants program responds to the needs of local ngos that defend human rights, strengthen independent media and civic…
Public Benefit
4
Democracy for America Advocacy Fund
Democracy for America Advocacy Fund (DFA-AF) is a 501(c)(4) organization that advocates for fair, just, inclusive, and equitable public policies that benefit all, not just a few. DFA-AF was launched to take on structural democracy reform…
—
5
Upstate Action Alliance
Non-PartisanVoter Educ Advocacy
Civil Rights
6
Yes On National Popular Vote
Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote
—
7
Civica Initiatives
Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions
Community Improvement
8
Presidential Election Project Inc
Securing reforms to the electoral count act
—
9
North Carolina Information Innovation Fund Inc
Educate North Carolinians on civic duty and elections, including the importance of voting, national policies, engaging in issue-based dialogues with elected officials, and related research.
Public Benefit
10
Tennessee Investor Fund
The tennessee investor fund (tif) is a non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to supporting organizations that conduct research, voter education, advocacy on legislative and economic issues, and voter turnout.
Public Benefit
11
Equal Vote Coalition
The Equal Vote Coalitions mission is to promote true equality in the vote We conduct and support top-notch research educate communities and build coalitions Our five core principles for electoral reform mandate that proposals we support…
Civil Rights
12
Four for Montana Action Fund
To promote social welfare including, but not limited to, advocating for electoral reforms that give montanans more choice in candidates for elections.
—
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Redistricting Action Fund and the most unlike its peers is New Venture Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
10 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Civil Rights$1,925,000Public Benefit$300,000Other$175,000Education$30,000Environment$10,000
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 NATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds Common Cause Education Fund ↗
- Who funds The Registration Project ↗
- Who funds Arizona Advocacy Foundation ↗
- Who funds BVM Capacity Building Institute ↗
- Who funds NEVADA ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds NORTH CAROLINA CITIZENS FOR PROTECTING OUR SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds TAKEITBACK ORG-ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds INDIANA CITIZEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organisation NATIONAL REDISTRICTING FOUNDATION 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
04Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: TAKEITBACK ORG-ADVOCACY.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
high risk
3 years of Form 990 filings, no recent filing.
Legal standing
medium risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 473176941 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on TAKEITBACK ORG-ADVOCACY, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
- FlagSustained operations— No recent filing on record.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 54% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to National Redistricting Foundation?
Find your warmest path to National Redistricting Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
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