Skip to content
National Redistricting Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$525k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$500k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Civil Rights$2.4MPublic Benefit$455kEducation$75kPhilanthropy$10k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $250k+1 grant · $500k
$500,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND$500,000
TIDES ADVOCACY$25,000
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 11%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Arizona Advocacy Foundation: $75k → 11%TIDES ADVOCACY: $25k → 14%NATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $750k → 14%Progress Missouri Education Fund: $50k → 10%BVM Capacity Building Institute: $50k → 13%INDIANA CITIZEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $5k → 16%NATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $1.1M → 14%NEVADA ALLIANCE: $50k → 13%Common Cause Education Fund: $200k → 14%The Registration Project: $100k → 14%NEW VENTURE FUND: $10k → 14%NATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $500k → 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

IL
NV
SD
IN
CA
MO
AZ
NC
DC
GA
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 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
Texas Justice Fund

To support legal, political & administrative efforts to protect fair voting.

—
2
Common Cause

With offices in washington d.c. and 25 states and 1.5 million supporters and activists, common cause works to advance democracy reforms at federal, state, and local levels, through drafting model legislation, lobbying, public engagement,…

—
3
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
4
Civica Initiatives

Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions

Community Improvement
5
Protect Colorados Vote

To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact

—
6
Election Reformers Network Inc

To strengthen democracy in the United States through an assessment of US voting systems and US election administration from the perspective of global best practices.

Civil Rights
7
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…

—
8
Ci Action Fund

Ci action fund will advocate for issues that improve outcomes for youth, immigrants, and black, indigenous, hispanic, disabled and youth of color (bihdyoc)

Civil Rights
9
Right to Vote Foundation

To defend the rights of all individuals to vote under federal and state law and remove obstacles to voting.

Civil Rights
10
Black Voters Matter Fund Inc

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.

—
11
Nc for the People Action (formerly Nc Voters for Clean Elections)

To improve the election process by making the act of voting more accessible to citizens, to lessen the influence of money in politics and to generally make elected officials more responsive to the citizens of North Carolina.

Public Benefit
12
Network for Civic Action

Network for civic action advocates for the protection of democracy and encourages civic engagement. it evaluates programs and educates donors about how their donations can best serve those goals.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New Venture Fund; the most unlike its peers is Indiana Citizen Education Foundation Inc. 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

11 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. 11 of the 12 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $2,350,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND+2 more: $75,000 · Civil RightsCOMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND: $200,000 · Public BenefitCOMMON CAUS…THE REGISTRATION PROJECT INC: $100,000 · Public BenefitTHE REGISTR…ARIZONA ADVOCACY FOUNDATION: $75,000 · OtherNEVADA ALLIANCE: $50,000 · OtherPROGRESS MISSOURI EDUCATION FUND: $50,000 · OtherTIDES ADVOCACY: $25,000 · OtherJUSTICE FOR NC: $25,000 · EducationINDIANA CITIZEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · EducationNEW VENTURE FUND: $10,000 · Environment
Civil Rights$2,425,000Public Benefit$300,000Other$200,000Education$30,000Environment$10,000

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 budgetNATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $2,350,000 over 3y, 17% of budgetCOMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND: $200,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTHE REGISTRATION PROJECT INC: $100,000 over 1y, 21% of budgetARIZONA ADVOCACY FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 1y, 9.4% of budgetNEVADA ALLIANCE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBVM CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTAKEITBACK ORG-ADVOCACY: $25,000 over 1y, 54% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINDIANA CITIZEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.9% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization National Redistricting Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Redistricting Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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
    0get 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.

    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 12 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’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