Skip to content
Organize Action at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Organize Action

ORGANIZE ACTION works to advance social welfare and support the common good and general welfare by promoting democracy and advancing human rights.

$6.9M
Granted FY2024still arriving
41
Grants FY2024still arriving
18
States reached
$975k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Public Benefit$7.4MCivil Rights$488kHuman Services$360kCommunity Improvement$150k
02FY2024 · 41 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $125k
  • $50k–250k28 grants · $4.0M
  • $250k+5 grants · $2.7M
$150,000
Median grant
18
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CARE IN ACTION$975,000
ASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC$585,000
BATTLEGROUND NY ACTION FUND$498,250
MI PODER$337,500
UNITE HERE ACTION FUND$300,000
1K WOMEN STRONG INC$237,500
INSTITUTO POWER$202,375
NCAAT IN ACTION$200,000
MICHIGAN PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN$200,000
OUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA$200,000
CAROLINA FEDERATION$200,000
NORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND$200,000
WE THE PEOPLE ACTION FUND$200,000
LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA$200,000
DOWN HOME NORTH CAROLINA$200,000
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 (FY22–24, $880k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 18% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $200k → 11%CHINESE PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL ACTION: $100k → 16%REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $60k → 14%NCAAT IN ACTION: $200k → 8%NORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $200k → 8%NORTH CAROLINA ASIAN AMERICANS TOGETHER: $120k → 8%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
WI
MI
NY
MA
NV
PA
CA
NE
MO
KY
VA
AZ
NC
DC
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
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.

22%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.8M · 6 repeat orgs$6.6M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +42% since the first grant, against -10% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 36 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
10

Total granted

$1.8M
$777k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
-10%

Still filing today

100%
90%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 16% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.8M went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
Civil RightsHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementPublic BenefitInternationalOther
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

  • NI
    NCAAT IN ACTION
    2× · 2022–2024 · $320k · revenue +212%
  • MW
    MISSOURI WIN
    2× · 2023–2024 · $250k · revenue +236%
  • FA
    Freedom Action Now
    2× · 2022–2023 · $183k · revenue +42%

Funded once

  • FM
    FUSE Mississippi
    one grant, 2023 · $150k · 100% of their budget
  • AA
    ASIAN AMERICAN MIDWEST PROGRESSIVES
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue -18% · 57% of their budget
  • CP
    CHINESE PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL ACTION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue -63% · 33% of their budget
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
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
2
Progressive Workers Coalition

To ensure that working class people are educated on their voting rights. The coalition engages in mobilization and educational information sessions to ensure that all workers voices are heard.

—
3
Colorado People's Action

Colorado people's action (cpa) is a member-driven, racial justice organization dedicated to winning long-lasting progressive public policies in colorado. cpa builds power by mobilizing voters, electing our own people to office, holding…

—
4
American Workers for Progress

American workers for progress works to ensure that leaders at every level are focused on reducing barriers to job growth and addressing economic challenges to guarantee a better future for all americans.

—
5
Missouri Workers Power

Our mission is to advocate for a just and equitable economy where poor and working people make more of the decisions that affect their daily lives. Through civic engagement, political advocacy, and issue-based voter education and…

—
6
Organize for Justice

Organize for justice develops diverse campaign leadership by passing on innovations and relationships from one generation of organizers to the next. the organization strives to create public support on issues affecting working americans.

—
7
RepresentUs

RepresentUs is America's leading nonpartisan grassroots organization working for a government accountable to the people. We unite people from all backgrounds to defend democracy, root out corruption, mobilize action, and support campaigns…

Public Benefit
8
National Legal Advocacy Network Dba Glow

The National Legal Advocacy Network d/b/a Grassroots Law & Organizing for Workers is a legal non-profit organization dedicated to using legal strategies as a tool to build power for marginalized workers and create systemic change through…

Crime & Legal
9
Right to Democracy Project

Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories through participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building.

Civil Rights
10
Six Action

Six action realizes a bold policy agenda that secures and sustains meaningful racial, gender, social and economic justice outcomes that center the people most impacted by systemic and structural oppression. we support values-aligned state…

Civil Rights
11
Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote

It is the mission of APIAVote to encourage and promote civic participation of Asian Pacific Islander Americans in the electoral and public processes at the national, state, and local levels. APIAVote also aims to educate and inform Asian…

Civil Rights
12
Missouri Jobs With Justice Voter Action

To develop and advocate for legislation, regulations, ballot initiatives, and government programs as a voice of the working class, to promote social justice, and to stimulate the economy; and, to conduct research, educate the public, and…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Splc Action Fund; the most unlike its peers is Virginia Coalition for Progressive Values. 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

48 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. 48 of the 52 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
48/48
Grantees still filing
8/48
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Care in Action Inc: $975,000 · Civil RightsCare in Action IncASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $645,000 · Civil RightsASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INCBATTLEGROUND NEW YORK ACTION INC: $498,250 · Civil RightsBATTLEGROUND NEW YORK ACTION INCMI PODER: $337,500 · Civil RightsMI PODERNEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUND: $260,000 · Civil RightsWe The People Action Fund: $200,000 · Civil RightsMichigan Peoples Campaign: $200,000 · Civil RightsUnited for Respect: $200,000 · Civil RightsOUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA: $200,000 · Civil RightsCAROLINA FEDERATION: $200,000 · Civil RightsSPLC ACTION FUND: $185,000 · Civil RightsFreedom Action Now: $182,500 · Civil Rights+13 more: $1,159,237 · Civil Rights+13 moreUNITE HERE ACTION FUND: $300,000 · OtherUNITE HERE ACTION F…1K Women Strong Inc: $237,500 · Other1K Women Strong IncDETROIT ACTION: $200,000 · OtherDETROIT ACTIONFUSE Mississippi: $150,000 · OtherFUSE MississippiTeamsters Defending Democracy & Workers Rights: $100,000 · OtherTeamsters Defending…ONE APIA TEXAS INC: $100,000 · OtherONE APIA TEXAS INCMOTHERING JUSTICE ACTION FUND: $100,000 · OtherMOTHERING JUSTICE A…New Rural Project: $50,000 · OtherASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER POLITICAL AL LIANCE: $50,000 · Other+8 more: $125,500 · Other+8 moreNCAAT IN ACTION: $320,000 · Human ServicesNCAAT IN ACTIO…NORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $200,000 · Human ServicesNORTH CAROLINA…DOWN HOME NC: $200,000 · Human ServicesDOWN HOME NCLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $200,000 · Human ServicesLIVING UNITED …CHINESE PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL ACTION INC: $100,000 · Human ServicesCHINESE PROGRE…REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $60,000 · Human ServicesREPRODUCTIVE F…MISSOURI WIN: $250,000 · Community ImprovementWORKER POWER: $150,000 · Community ImprovementInstituto Power: $202,375 · Public BenefitONE APIA NEVADA: $72,750 · International
Civil Rights$5,242,487Other$1,413,000Human Services$1,080,000Community Improvement$400,000Public Benefit$202,375International$72,750

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 budgetCare in Action Inc: $975,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $645,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetBATTLEGROUND NEW YORK ACTION INC: $498,250 over 1y, 9.3% of budgetMI PODER: $337,500 over 1y, 36% of budgetNCAAT IN ACTION: $320,000 over 2y, 7.4% of budgetUNITE HERE ACTION FUND: $300,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetNEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUND: $260,000 over 2y, 30% of budgetMISSOURI WIN: $250,000 over 2y, 8.1% of budget1K Women Strong Inc: $237,500 over 1y, 32% of budgetInstituto Power: $202,375 over 1y, 12% of budgetWe The People Action Fund: $200,000 over 1y, 9.0% of budgetMichigan Peoples Campaign: $200,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetUnited for Respect: $200,000 over 1y, 38% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $200,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetDOWN HOME NC: $200,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetOUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA: $200,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetCAROLINA FEDERATION: $200,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $200,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetSPLC ACTION FUND: $185,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetFreedom Action Now: $182,500 over 2y, 16% of budgetMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC: $160,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetWORKER POWER: $150,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetPennsylvania United: $150,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetFUSE Mississippi: $150,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetORGANIZE PENNSYLVANIA: $150,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetRURAL ARIZONA ACTION: $125,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetARAB AMERICANS FOR PROGRESS: $120,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN MIDWEST PROGRESSIVES: $100,000 over 1y, 57% of budgetCHINESE PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL ACTION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 33% of budgetMOTHERING JUSTICE ACTION FUND: $100,000 over 1y, 7.4% of budgetONE APIA NEVADA: $72,750 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetCENTER FOR EMPOWERED POLITICS: $72,750 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetFLORIDA RISING INC: $61,487 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $60,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetARIZONA WINS: $60,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetNew Rural Project: $50,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetNew Pennsylvania Project: $50,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetVirginia Coalition for Progressive Values: $45,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetALL HANDS ON DECK NETWORK INC: $10,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetIF NOT NOW MOVEMENT: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetVOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetUNITED WORKING FAMILIES: $10,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetINSTITUTE MIDDLE EAST UNDERSTANDING POLICY PROJECT: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetMOVE TEXAS ACTION FUND: $10,000 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.

Tides AdvocacySixteen Thirty FundAll Hands on Deck Net…Way to Win Action Fun…Open Society Action F…America VotesPro-Democracy CampaignWomen Donors Network …NEO Philanthropy Acti…Tides FoundationState Engagement FundWorking Families Orga…
Tides AdvocacyCA79.5× affinity37 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides Advocacy · Sixteen Thirty Fund · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · America Votes · Pro-Democracy Campaign · Women Donors Network Action · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · Tides Foundation · State Engagement Fund · Working Families Organization Inc

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 Organize Action funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Organize Action. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%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
    3get 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Organize Action?

    Find your warmest path to Organize Action through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 52 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 Organize Action’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