Skip to content
Redwood Creek Action at a glance

· Public charity

Redwood Creek Action

To support efforts that strengthen the united states' democratic processes and ideals.

$565k
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2024 to 2025.

Public Benefit$581kPhilanthropy$285kCivil Rights$210kArts & Culture$50kEducation$50kHuman Services$50kScience & Tech$50kEnvironment$45kOther$0
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 16 grants below total $545,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $565,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $20,000 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k11 grants · $240k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $305k
$30,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OUR AMERICAN FUTURE FOUNDATION$100,000
PROGRESSIVE CHANGE INSTITUTE$55,000
P STREET PROJECT$50,000
RUN FOR SOMETHING$50,000
HIGHER GROUND LABS MANAGEMENT$50,000
PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND$40,000
INDIVISIBLE PROJECT$30,000
FOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY ACTION$30,000
COUNCIL ON TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY$25,000
SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND$25,000
GREENLIGHT AMERICA$20,000
INDIVISIBLE CIVICS$20,000
PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE$20,000
INCLUSIVE ABUNDANCE INITIATIVE$10,000
A BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER$10,000
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 (FY24–24, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, 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%WorkMoney Foundation Inc: $50k → 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

IL
WI
NY
CT
CA
MD
DC
TX
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
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
Progress Texas Institute

The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.

Civil Rights
2
Inclusive Prosperity Capital Inc

Ipc's purpose is to lessen the burdens of government and to protect, promote and preserve the natural environment by: 1) developing and supporting programs to finance and stimulate demand for clean energy investment in residential,…

Environment
3
Accountableus

Accountable.us is a watchdog organization that shines a light on the corrupting influence of powerful corporations and special interests on policymaking. we use investigative research to expose improprieties and communicate our findings to…

Civil Rights
4
Bipartisan Policy Center Inc

To drive principled solutions through rigorous analysis, reasoned negotiation, and respectful dialogue. to actively promote bipartisanship and work to address the key challenges facing the nation including energy and infrastructure,…

Public Benefit
5
Voteamerica

The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.

Civil Rights
6
Advance Democracy Inc

Advance democracy, inc. is a non-partisan nonprofit that produces independent public-interest research and journalism to educate the public on important public matters. the organization conducts highly-technical, specialized research,…

International
7
American Policy Ventures Foundation F/K/a American Policy Ventures Inc

American policy ventures foundation is dedicated to reducing polarization and fostering cross-partisan problem-solving on important issues.

Public Benefit
8
Center for American Progress Action Fund

The center for american progress action fund's (the action fund) mission is to impact the national debate and transform progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, public education, grassroots organization and…

Public Benefit
9
One for Democracy Action Fund

One for democracy unlocks resources to build a healthy democracy by fostering meaningful relationships between philanthropists and the democracy leaders of our time.

—
10
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment
11
Upturn Inc

Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.

—
12
Actblue Civics Inc

To develop and promote innovative fundraising tools and practices that utilize internet technology among social welfare organizations for the purpose of increasing grassroots engagement in social welfare activities, as well as…

Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Organizing Empowerment Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Texas Blue Action Fund. 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

24 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. 24 of the 28 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)
23/24
Grantees still filing
8/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Collective Impact Action: $100,510 · OtherCollective Impact ActionRUN FOR SOMETHING PAC: $75,000 · OtherRUN FOR SOMETHING PACBluebonnet Data Inc: $70,000 · OtherBluebonnet Data IncTHE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION: $50,000 · OtherTHE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATIONP STREET PROJECT: $50,000 · OtherP STREET PROJECTHIGHER GROUND LABS MANAGEMENT LLC: $50,000 · OtherHIGHER GROUND LABS MANAGEMENT LLCFOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY ACTION: $30,000 · OtherFOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY ACTIONINDIVISIBLE ACTION ARIZONA: $20,000 · OtherPROGRESSIVE CHG CAMP COMM NON FED: $20,000 · Other+1 more: $10,000 · OtherOUR AMERICAN FUTURE FOUNDATION: $100,000 · Civil RightsOUR AMERICAN FUTURE FOUN…Texas Blue Action Fund: $50,000 · Civil RightsTexas Blue Action FundORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT PROJECT INC: $50,000 · Civil RightsORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT P…ORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT FUND INC: $50,000 · Civil RightsORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT F…INDIVISIBLE PROJECT: $30,000 · Civil RightsINDIVISIBLE PROJECTINDIVISIBLE CIVICS: $20,000 · Civil RightsINDIVISIBLE CIVICS+1 more: $10,000 · Civil RightsProgressive Change Institute: $155,000 · Public BenefitProgressive Chan…NEO Philanthropy Inc: $35,000 · Public BenefitNEO Philanthropy…INCLUSIVE ABUNDANCE INITIATIVE INC: $10,000 · Public BenefitHOPEWELL FUND: $110,000 · PhilanthropyHOPEWELL FUN…PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC: $40,000 · PhilanthropyPLAYERS PHIL…NEW VENTURE FUND: $100,000 · EnvironmentNEW VENTURE…SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $25,000 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN THI…GREENLIGHT AMERICA: $20,000 · EnvironmentGREENLIGHT …WORKMONEY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · Human ServicesYale University: $50,000 · EducationAbundance Network Education: $25,000 · Science & Tech
Other$475,510Civil Rights$310,000Public Benefit$200,000Philanthropy$150,000Environment$145,000Human Services$50,000Education$50,000Science & Tech$25,000

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 budgetProgressive Change Institute: $155,000 over 2y, 25% of budgetHOPEWELL FUND: $110,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOUR AMERICAN FUTURE FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBluebonnet Data Inc: $70,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetTHE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWORKMONEY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT PROJECT INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetYale University: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT FUND INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $35,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY ACTION: $30,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetA BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC: $10,000 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.

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 FoundationFuture Forward USA Ac…Hopewell FundAmerica VotesTides AdvocacySixteen Thirty FundOakw FundAdvocacy Action Fund …Strategic Victory FundThe Leonard & Sophie …Clean and Prosperous …American Federation o…
Tides FoundationCA19.2× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides Foundation · Future Forward USA Action · Hopewell Fund · America Votes · Tides Advocacy · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Oakw Fund · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Strategic Victory Fund · The Leonard & Sophie Davis Fund · Clean and Prosperous America · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 30%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Yale University: 12% of 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 · 0–15%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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 Redwood Creek Action?

Find your warmest path to Redwood Creek 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 28 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Redwood Creek 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