Skip to content
Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest

Nebraska appleseed fights for justice and opportunity for all nebraskans.

$359k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$140k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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, FY2017 to 2024.

Civil Rights$749kCommunity Improvement$291kEmployment$154kHealth$135kPublic Benefit$72kHousing & Shelter$70kHuman Services$28kCrime & Legal$19kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $331,100, the rows itemized in this filing. The $358,992 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $27,892 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $61k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $256k
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%HOPE-ESPERANZA: $8k → 12%WOMEN'S FUND OF GREATER OMAHA: $25k → 12%IMMIGRANT LEGAL CENTER: $11k → 12%TOGETHER INC OF METROPOLITAN OMAHA: $25k → 12%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.
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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 10 repeat orgs$206k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +123% since the first grant, against +26% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
10

Total granted

$1.3M
$178k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+123%
+26%

Still filing today

90%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsHuman ServicesPublic BenefitFood & NutritionEmploymentOther
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

  • NA
    NEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUND
    3× · 2022–2024 · $316k · revenue +123% · 37% of their budget
  • VD
    VOZ DE ESPERANZA
    6× · 2018–2024 · $163k · revenue +198%
  • UI
    UNITY IN ACTION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $159k · revenue +30%

Funded once

  • IT
    INSURE THE GOOD LIFE
    one grant, 2018 · $75k
  • TI
    TOGETHER INC OF METROPOLITAN OMAHA
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -22%
  • WF
    WOMEN'S FUND OF GREATER OMAHA INC
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -30%
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
Nebraska Votes

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.

Civil Rights
2
One Omaha

One omaha empowers people where they live with education, training, and engagement to develop thriving neighborhoods.

Community Improvement
3
North Omaha Collective

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.

Human Services
4
Refugee Empowerment Center

To resettle refugees in nebraska and provide them the support they need to thrive.

—
5
Community Action of Nebraska Inc

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.

Community Improvement
6
Nebraska State Afl-Cio

Labor relations

—
7
Nebraskans for Better Governance

To promote election reform measures in the State of Nebraska.

—
8
Nebraska Family Support Network

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.

—
9
The Nebraska Abortion & Reproductive Justice Fund

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.

—
10
Nebraska Civic Engagement Table

The nebraska civic engagement table works with nonprofits to increase voting and build an engaged nebraska.

Civil Rights
11
Omaha ForUs Inc

Omaha forus builds intentional community and creates equitable space in service to lgbtq+ individuals and families of eastern nebraska and western iowa.

Human Services
12
Community Justice Center

A restorative justice agency committed to habilitating justice in nebraska.

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Justice for Our Neighbors-Nebraska; 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.
04the grantee network

16 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. 16 of the 23 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
13/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUND: $315,500 · Civil RightsNEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUNDVOZ DE ESPERANZA: $163,350 · Civil RightsVOZ DE ESPERANZAUNITY IN ACTION: $159,200 · Civil RightsUNITY IN ACTIONNEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $150,000 · Civil RightsNEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMEMPOWERING FAMILIES of Nebraska Inc: $60,500 · Civil RightsEMPOWERING FAMILIES of Nebraska IncRaise the Wage Nebraska: $265,449 · OtherRaise the Wage NebraskaINSURE THE GOOD LIFE: $75,000 · OtherINSURE THE GOOD LIFECENTER FOR RURAL AFFAIRS: $60,137 · OtherCENTER FOR RURAL AFFAIRSNATIVE FUTURES: $58,225 · OtherNATIVE FUTURESLINCOLN FOR FAIR HOUSING: $20,100 · OtherVOICES FOR CHILDREN IN NEBRASKA: $20,000 · Other+4 more: $25,772 · OtherTOGETHER INC OF METROPOLITAN OMAHA: $25,000 · Human ServicesWOMEN'S FUND OF GREATER OMAHA INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesJUSTICE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS-NEBRASKA: $11,248 · Human ServicesHOPE- ESPERANZA: $8,000 · Human ServicesOPENSKY POLICY INSTITUTE: $59,500 · Public BenefitJEWISH FEDERATION OF OMAHA INC: $15,250 · PhilanthropyHEART MINISTRY CENTER: $8,000 · Food & NutritionRISE ACADEMY: $7,917 · Employment
Civil Rights$848,550Other$524,683Human Services$69,248Public Benefit$59,500Philanthropy$15,250Food & Nutrition$8,000Employment$7,917

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUND: $315,500 over 3y, 37% of budgetRaise the Wage Nebraska: $265,449 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetVOZ DE ESPERANZA: $163,350 over 6y, 6.7% of budgetUNITY IN ACTION: $159,200 over 8y, 13% of budgetNEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $150,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetEMPOWERING FAMILIES of Nebraska Inc: $60,500 over 5y, 9.0% of budgetCENTER FOR RURAL AFFAIRS: $60,137 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetOPENSKY POLICY INSTITUTE: $59,500 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetTOGETHER INC OF METROPOLITAN OMAHA: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWOMEN'S FUND OF GREATER OMAHA INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetVOICES FOR CHILDREN IN NEBRASKA: $20,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF OMAHA INC: $15,250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJUSTICE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS-NEBRASKA: $11,248 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHOPE- ESPERANZA: $8,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetHEART MINISTRY CENTER: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRISE ACADEMY: $7,917 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.

The Sherwood Foundati…Weitz Family Foundati…The Lozier FoundationNebraska Community Fo…The Holland FoundationUnited Way of the Mid…The Fairness ProjectTodd and Mary Heistan…Cooper FoundationThe Charles and Mary …Immanuel Community Vi…Peter Kiewit Foundati…
The Sherwood FoundationNE31.8× affinity13 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 23 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest’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