· Public charity
Nebraska Civic Engagement Table
The NEBRASKA CIVIC ENGAGEMENT TABLE works with nonprofits to increase voting and build an engaged nebraska.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $425,140 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $478,645 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $53,505 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 $10k6 grants · $40k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $375k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SECOND HOUSE COLLABORATIVE | $160,000 |
| YOUR NEBRASKA | $115,000 |
| NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM | $100,000 |
| NEIGHBORWORKS LINCOLN | $10,000 |
| INCOMMON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT | $8,890 |
| ONE OMAHA | $7,500 |
| ACLU NEBRASKA | $7,500 |
| MALCOLM X MEMORIAL FOUNDATION | $6,250 |
| HEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER | $5,000 |
| I BE BLACK GIRL | $5,000 |
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, $212k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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 +223% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
23 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 18 since wound down; 5 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, 44% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $238k 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 CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST4× · 2018–2023 · $74k · revenue +149%
- UIUNITY IN ACTION3× · 2019–2022 · $41k · revenue +30%
- CMCOMUNIDAD MAYA PIXAN IXIM2× · 2020–2021 · $40k · revenue +354%
Funded once
- NCNEBRASKA CONSERVATION EDUCATION FUNone grant, 2017 · $33k
- NCNatl Coal 100 Black Womenone grant, 2020 · $28k
- NANEBRASKA APPLESEEDone grant, 2017 · $26k
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.
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.
The mission of the urban league of nebraska is to be an empowering voice in the community advocating for economic self-reliance, parity, power, civil rights and equal opportunity for all (see schedule o). the vision of the urban league of…
Justice for our neighbors-nebraska is a nonprofit organization welcoming immigrants into our communities by providing free, high-quality immigration legal services, education, and advocacy.
Advocacy of policies to support Nebraskans.
A restorative justice agency committed to habilitating justice in nebraska.
Omaha forus builds intentional community and creates equitable space in service to lgbtq+ individuals and families of eastern nebraska and western iowa.
To resettle refugees in nebraska and provide them the support they need to thrive.
To promote social, economic and environmental justice.
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.
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.
The nebraska civic engagement table works with nonprofits to increase voting and build an engaged nebraska.
Ensure every Nebraskans' voice is heard in public decision making processes, whether that is in the halls of legislative bodies or at the ballot box.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Civic Nebraska and the most unlike its peers is Somali Community Services Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 14 years old; the field is 22. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 9% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
26 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. 26 of the 55 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 SECOND HOUSE COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds HEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ↗
- Who funds UNITY IN ACTION ↗
- Who funds COMUNIDAD MAYA PIXAN IXIM ↗
- Who funds Black Votes Matter Institute of Community Engagement ↗
- Who funds ACLU NEBRASKA ↗
- Who funds ASIAN COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTERS OF NEBRASKA ↗
- Who funds EMPOWERING FAMILIES of Nebraska Inc ↗
- Who funds MALCOLM X MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MOSAIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS GREATER OMAHA ↗
- Who funds GRAND ISLAND YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds YWCA OF LINCOLN ↗
- Who funds YAZDA ↗
- Who funds THE UNION FOR CONTEMPORARY ART INC ↗
- Who funds EAST AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION OF NEBRASKA ↗
- Who funds SOMALI COMMUNITY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds OUR CLIMATE ↗
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 · Lincoln Community Foundation Inc · Cooper Foundation · Peter Kiewit Foundation · Tides Foundation · Spreetail Foundation · The Holland Foundation · Abel Foundation · Nebraska Community Foundation · The Fred and Eve Simon Charitable 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 Civic Engagement Table 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.