Skip to content
Nebraska Civic Engagement Table at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Nebraska Civic Engagement Table

The NEBRASKA CIVIC ENGAGEMENT TABLE works with nonprofits to increase voting and build an engaged nebraska.

$479k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$160k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% 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$529kHuman Services$243kPublic Benefit$218kEmployment$161kCommunity Improvement$88kCrime & Legal$74kInternational$47kEnvironment$44kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $425,140, the rows itemized in this filing. The $478,645 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $53,505 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 $10k6 grants · $40k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $375k
$8,890
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
I BE BLACK GIRL$5,000
HEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER$5,000
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, $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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%YWCA GRAND ISLAND: $10k → 12%YWCA Grand Island: $8k → 12%YWCA Lincoln: $15k → 13%SOMALI COMMUNITY SERVICE INC: $12k → 12%INCOMMON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $10k → 12%INCOMMON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $9k → 12%Heartland Workers Center: $55k → 12%HEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER: $50k → 12%Heartland Workers Center: $14k → 12%HEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER: $10k → 12%Heartland Workers Center: $8k → 12%HEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER: $8k → 12%HEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER: $5k → 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.

63%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 23 repeat orgs$606k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +223% since the first grant, against 0% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
27

Total granted

$1.0M
$369k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+223%
0%

Still filing today

61%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 44% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $238k 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 ServicesArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementCrime & LegalHousing & ShelterOther
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 CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
    4× · 2018–2023 · $74k · revenue +149%
  • UI
    UNITY IN ACTION
    3× · 2019–2022 · $41k · revenue +30%
  • CM
    COMUNIDAD MAYA PIXAN IXIM
    2× · 2020–2021 · $40k · revenue +354%

Funded once

  • NC
    NEBRASKA CONSERVATION EDUCATION FUN
    one grant, 2017 · $33k
  • NC
    Natl Coal 100 Black Women
    one grant, 2020 · $28k
  • NA
    NEBRASKA APPLESEED
    one grant, 2017 · $26k
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
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
2
Urban League of Nebraska

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…

Human Services
3
Justice for Our Neighbors-Nebraska

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.

Human Services
4
Raise the Wage Nebraska

Advocacy of policies to support Nebraskans.

—
5
Community Justice Center

A restorative justice agency committed to habilitating justice in nebraska.

Crime & Legal
6
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
7
Refugee Empowerment Center

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

—
8
Iowa Citizen Action Network

To promote social, economic and environmental justice.

—
9
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
10
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
11
Nebraska Civic Engagement Table

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

Civil Rights
12
Nebraska Appleseed Action Fund

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.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Civic Nebraska; 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.
04the grantee network

26 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. 26 of the 55 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/26
Grantees still filing
16/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YOUR NEBRASKA: $115,000 · OtherYOUR NEBRASKANEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $100,000 · OtherNEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMACLU: $49,960 · OtherACLUIndividual grant recipient: $40,600 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $34,970 · OtherNEBRASKA CONSERVATION EDUCATION FUN: $32,615 · OtherLATINO CENTER OF THE MIDLANDS: $32,000 · OtherACLU NEBRASKA: $29,700 · Other+28 more: $440,015 · Other+28 moreSECOND HOUSE COLLABORATIVE: $210,000 · Civil RightsSECOND HOUSE COLLABORATI…UNITY IN ACTION: $40,800 · Civil RightsUNITY IN ACTIONBlack Votes Matter Institute of Community Engagement: $36,000 · Civil RightsBlack Votes Matter Insti…EMPOWERING FAMILIES of Nebraska Inc: $23,100 · Civil RightsEMPOWERING FAMILIES of N…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS GREATER OMAHA: $18,785 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS G…+2 more: $15,000 · Civil RightsHEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER: $148,500 · Human ServicesHEARTLAND WORK…MOSAIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $18,890 · Human ServicesMOSAIC COMMUNI…GRAND ISLAND YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION: $17,640 · Human ServicesGRAND ISLAND Y…YWCA OF LINCOLN: $15,000 · Human ServicesYWCA OF LINCOL…SOMALI COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $12,000 · Human ServicesSOMALI COMMUNI…COMUNIDAD MAYA PIXAN IXIM: $40,000 · Arts & CultureASIAN COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL CENTER: $24,385 · Arts & CultureTHE UNION FOR CONTEMPORARY ART INC: $12,000 · Arts & CultureNEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: $73,587 · Crime & LegalMALCOLM X MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $22,250 · EducationELEVATE OMAHA INC: $7,500 · Community ImprovementONE OMAHA: $7,500 · Community Improvement
Other$874,860Civil Rights$343,685Human Services$212,030Arts & Culture$76,385Crime & Legal$73,587Education$22,250Community Improvement$15,000

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 budgetSECOND HOUSE COLLABORATIVE: $210,000 over 2y, 18% of budgetHEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER: $148,500 over 7y, 3.3% of budgetNEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: $73,587 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetUNITY IN ACTION: $40,800 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetCOMUNIDAD MAYA PIXAN IXIM: $40,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetBlack Votes Matter Institute of Community Engagement: $36,000 over 3y, 4.9% of budgetACLU NEBRASKA: $29,700 over 3y, 8.2% of budgetASIAN COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL CENTER: $24,385 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTERS OF NEBRASKA: $24,250 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetEMPOWERING FAMILIES of Nebraska Inc: $23,100 over 2y, 9.4% of budgetMALCOLM X MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $22,250 over 4y, 5.1% of budgetMOSAIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $18,890 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS GREATER OMAHA: $18,785 over 2y, 16% of budgetGRAND ISLAND YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION: $17,640 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetYWCA OF LINCOLN: $15,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetEAST AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION OF NEBRASKA: $12,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetYAZDA: $12,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetTHE UNION FOR CONTEMPORARY ART INC: $12,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetNEIGHBORHOODS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetRABBLE MILL: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetCIVIC NEBRASKA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetELEVATE OMAHA INC: $7,500 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetONE OMAHA: $7,500 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetI BE BLACK GIRL: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • 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 SOMALI COMMUNITY SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds EAST AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION OF NEBRASKA ↗
  • Who funds YAZDA ↗
  • Who funds THE UNION FOR CONTEMPORARY ART INC ↗
  • Who funds OUR CLIMATE ↗

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 FoundationLincoln Community Fou…Cooper FoundationPeter Kiewit Foundati…Tides FoundationSpreetail FoundationThe Holland FoundationAbel FoundationNebraska Community Fo…The Fred and Eve Simo…
The Sherwood FoundationNE45.8× affinity20 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Civic Engagement Table funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nebraska Civic Engagement Table. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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 55 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 Civic Engagement Table’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