Skip to content
Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement

To equip and mobilize funders to strengthen democracy through active civic engagement.

$66k
Granted FY2023
2
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$35k
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, FY2019 to 2023.

Public Benefit$859kCommunity Improvement$106kReligion$101k
02FY2023 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $60,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $65,660 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $5,660 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.
$35,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
The Carter Center$35,000
Utah Film Center$25,000
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 (FY19–22, $147k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, 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%NM COMUNIDADES EN ACCION Y DE FE: $54k → 23%FAITH IN INDIANA: $54k → 16%NM COMUNIDADES EN ACCION Y DE FE: $10k → 23%FAITH IN INDIANA: $10k → 16%MORE IN COMMON: $20k → 17%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

AK
MN
IL
WI
NY
OR
IN
CA
UT
VA
NM
TN
NC
DC
AL
GA
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.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$778k · 13 repeat orgs$276k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +74% since the first grant, against +16% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2023, 13 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
10

Total granted

$778k
$216k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+74%
+16%

Still filing today

77%
70%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23
ReligionHuman ServicesInternationalArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementSocial ScienceOther
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

  • NM
    NATIVE MOVEMENT
    3× · 2020–2022 · $106k · revenue +282%
  • VI
    Virginia Interfaith Center For Public Policy
    2× · 2019–2021 · $66k · revenue +74%
  • I
    ISAIAH
    2× · 2019–2021 · $65k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • IA
    INTERFAITH AMERICAgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $54k · revenue +720%
  • FI
    FAITH IN ACTION ALABAMA
    one grant, 2020 · $54k · revenue -28%
  • FRACTURED ATLAS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +16%
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
American Interfaith Institute
Religion
2
Interfaith Center of Greater Philadelphia

In order to promote social harmony and inter-religious understanding, Interfaith Philadelphia equips individuals and communities for interfaith engagement, builds collaborative relationships, and stands in solidarity with our diverse…

Religion
3
The Interfaith Alliance Foundation Inc

Interfaith alliance is a growing network of people of diverse faiths and beliefs across the country working together to build a resilient democracy and fulfill america's promise of religious freedom and civil rights not just for some, but…

Religion
4
International Leadership Institute

The international leadership institute (ili) changes history by accelerating the spread of the gospel through training and mobilizing leaders of leaders to reach their nations. ili accomplishes this purpose through cutting edge leadership…

Religion
5
The Institute for Cultural Evolution

To advance political evolution in america to outgrow the hyper-partisan polarization that threatens our democracy.

Social Science
6
Center of Theological Inquiry

The Center of Theological Inquiry is an independent research institution with an international visiting scholar program which convenes researchers in an ideal setting for interdisciplinary inquiries where theology casts light on global…

Religion
7
Faith Forward

Faith Forward is an interfaith network of people who advocate for policy positions that reflect our belief that each individual has equal worth in the eyes of the creator and therefore should have equal dignity under the law. We seek to…

—
8
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment
9
Jewish Coalition for Immigrant Justice Northwest

The jewish coalition builds a jewish voice in the pacific northwest advancing immigrant justice and domestic policy, following the leadership of impacted community.

Human Services
10
Interfaith Worker Justice

To advance the rights of workers by engaging diverse faith communities into action, from grassroots organizing to shaping policy at the local, state and national levels. They envision a nation where all workers enjoy the rights to:…

Religion
11
Arizona Ecumenical Council

Arizona Ecumenical Council dba Arizona Faith Network invites people into meaningful relationships, shared prayer and dialogue rooted in our faith traditions, and actions that influence public awareness, engagement and policy.

—
12
Institute for Public Accuracy

To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Aspen Institute Inc; the most unlike its peers is America Indivisible. 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

20 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. 20 of the 26 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
14/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Virginia Interfaith Center For Public Policy: $65,550 · OtherVirginia Interfaith Center For Pub…WISCONSIN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES: $64,785 · OtherWISCONSIN COUNCIL OF CHURCHESCHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY BOARD OF DIRECTORS: $64,750 · OtherCHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY BOARD…THE ONE AMERICA MOVEMENT: $63,238 · OtherTHE ONE AMERICA MOVEMENTLIVE FREE CHICAGO: $35,625 · OtherLIVE FREE CHICAGONORTHERN VIRGINIA HEBREW CONGREGATION: $11,250 · Other+2 more: $20,000 · Other+2 moreISAIAH: $64,800 · ReligionISAIAHAMERICA INDIVISIBLE: $63,500 · ReligionAMERICA INDIVISIBLEINTERFAITH AMERICA: $53,500 · ReligionINTERFAITH AMERICAFAITH IN ACTION ALABAMA: $53,500 · ReligionFAITH IN ACTION ALABAMAAMERICAN MUSLIM ADVISORY COUNC: $36,250 · ReligionAMERICAN MUSLIM ADVISORY COUNCNEIGHBORLY FAITH INC: $27,300 · ReligionNEIGHBORLY FAITH INCChristian Foundation of America DBA Christian Foundation of The West: $11,500 · ReligionONETABLE INC: $11,250 · ReligionNM Comunidades En Accion Y De Fe: $63,500 · Human ServicesNM Comunidades …Faith in Indiana: $63,500 · Human ServicesFaith in Indian…MORE IN COMMON INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesMORE IN COMMON …NATIVE MOVEMENT: $105,500 · Community ImprovementNATIVE MOVE…THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $60,000 · Social ScienceUTAH FILM CENTER: $25,000 · Arts & CultureFRACTURED ATLAS INC: $25,000 · Arts & CultureTHE CARTER CENTER INC: $35,000 · InternationalTHE SHALOM HARTMAN INSTITUTE OF NORTH AMERICA: $11,250 · InternationalWESTERN STATES CENTER: $10,000 · Public Benefit
Other$325,198Religion$321,600Human Services$147,000Community Improvement$105,500Social Science$60,000Arts & Culture$50,000International$46,250Public Benefit$10,000

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 budgetNATIVE MOVEMENT: $105,500 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetVirginia Interfaith Center For Public Policy: $65,550 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetISAIAH: $64,800 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetAMERICA INDIVISIBLE: $63,500 over 2y, 62% of budgetNM Comunidades En Accion Y De Fe: $63,500 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetFaith in Indiana: $63,500 over 2y, 6.7% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $60,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetINTERFAITH AMERICA: $53,500 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetFAITH IN ACTION ALABAMA: $53,500 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetAMERICAN MUSLIM ADVISORY COUNC: $36,250 over 2y, 6.4% of budgetLIVE FREE CHICAGO: $35,625 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetTHE CARTER CENTER INC: $35,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEIGHBORLY FAITH INC: $27,300 over 2y, 6.9% of budgetUTAH FILM CENTER: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFRACTURED ATLAS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMORE IN COMMON INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetChristian Foundation of America DBA Christian Foundation of The West: $11,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetONETABLE INC: $11,250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE SHALOM HARTMAN INSTITUTE OF NORTH AMERICA: $11,250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWESTERN STATES CENTER: $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.

New Venture FundTides FoundationFaith in Action Netwo…Proteus Fund IncAmalgamated Charitabl…Rockefeller Philanthr…Needmor Co the Northe…The Ford FoundationVanguard Charitable E…American Endowment Fo…National Philanthropi…Fidelity Investments …
New Venture FundDC21.9× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: New Venture Fund · Tides Foundation · Faith in Action Network · Proteus Fund Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Needmor Co the Northern Trust Company · The Ford Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 26 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement’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