· Public charity
Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest
Nebraska appleseed fights for justice and opportunity for all nebraskans.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 8 grants below total $331,100 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $358,992 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $27,892 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 · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $14k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $61k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $256k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PROTECT OUR RIGHTS | $140,000 |
| NEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUND (NAAF) | $65,000 |
| CENTRO HISPANO COMUNITARIO DE NEBRASKA | $51,000 |
| EMPOWERING FAMILIES | $25,000 |
| LINCOLN FOR FAIR HOUSING | $20,100 |
| UNITY IN ACTION | $16,000 |
| HOPE-ESPERANZA | $8,000 |
| NATIVE FUTURES | $6,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $69k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those 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.
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 +123% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k 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
- NANEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUND3× · 2022–2024 · $316k · revenue +123% · 37% of their budget
- VDVOZ DE ESPERANZA6× · 2018–2024 · $163k · revenue +198%
- UIUNITY IN ACTION8× · 2017–2024 · $159k · revenue +30%
Funded once
- ITINSURE THE GOOD LIFEone grant, 2018 · $75k
- TITOGETHER INC OF METROPOLITAN OMAHAone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -22%
- WFWOMEN'S FUND OF GREATER OMAHA INCone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -30%
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.
The organization's purpose is to ensure a fair and modern democracy in nebraska through research, education, and advocacy for policies and practices that promote participation in democracy.
One omaha empowers people where they live with education, training, and engagement to develop thriving neighborhoods.
To build the capacity of youth serving organizations, service providers, families and community to claim their voice, cultivate healing and take courageous action to improve their overall health and well being.
To resettle refugees in nebraska and provide them the support they need to thrive.
Mission: community action of nebraska strives to alleviate poverty through enhancing program development, providing technical assistance, and advocating public policy to support all community action agencies in nebraska.
Labor relations
To promote election reform measures in the State of Nebraska.
To provide support and advocacy to families of children. build confidence in parents by providing the necessary tools for appropriate decisions and actions. informing parents of their rights and to assist in problem resolution.
Our mission at NEAR is to remove barriers on every level for Nebraskans seeking abortion access. We envision a world in which all pregnant people can plan their families as they see fit which includes equitable access to abortion care.
The nebraska civic engagement table works with nonprofits to increase voting and build an engaged nebraska.
Omaha forus builds intentional community and creates equitable space in service to lgbtq+ individuals and families of eastern nebraska and western iowa.
A restorative justice agency committed to habilitating justice in nebraska.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Justice for Our Neighbors-Nebraska and the most unlike its peers is Voz De Esperanza. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 23 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 NEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds Raise the Wage Nebraska ↗
- Who funds VOZ DE ESPERANZA ↗
- Who funds UNITY IN ACTION ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds EMPOWERING FAMILIES of Nebraska Inc ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR RURAL AFFAIRS ↗
- Who funds OPENSKY POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds TOGETHER INC OF METROPOLITAN OMAHA ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S FUND OF GREATER OMAHA INC ↗
- Who funds VOICES FOR CHILDREN IN NEBRASKA ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF OMAHA INC ↗
- Who funds JUSTICE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS-NEBRASKA ↗
- Who funds HOPE- ESPERANZA ↗
- Who funds HEART MINISTRY CENTER ↗
- Who funds RISE ACADEMY ↗
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: The Sherwood Foundation · Weitz Family Foundation · The Lozier Foundation · Nebraska Community Foundation · The Holland Foundation · United Way of the Midlands · The Fairness Project · Todd and Mary Heistand Family Foundation · Cooper Foundation · The Charles and Mary Heider Family Foundation · Immanuel Community Vision Foundation · Peter Kiewit 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 Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest 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.