How much did RepresentUs grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 77% of RepresentUs’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2021

—

2022

protectmeasures

2023

—

2024

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$29,796

Median grant

States reached

$7.0M

Total assets

Largest grants

Winning Connection$29,796

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY23–23, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9% — the area typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your field

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.

Protect Colorados Vote

To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact

—

Yes On National Popular Vote

Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote

—

Equal Vote Coalition

The Equal Vote Coalitions mission is to promote true equality in the vote We conduct and support top-notch research educate communities and build coalitions Our five core principles for electoral reform mandate that proposals we support…

Civil Rights

Utah Ranked Choice Voting Action

Educate public officials regarding Ranked Choice Voting and advocate for legislation

Civil Rights

Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—

Voter Choice Arizona

Voter Choice Arizona aims to educate Arizona voters about how Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), along with open primaries, will improve elections, give them more voice and more choice, and lead to better outcomes for our state.

Public Benefit

Transparent Elections for Grassroots Engagement 1

Support state initative petition

—

National Popular Vote

To educate the public regarding its proposal to implement a Nationwide Popular Vote Election of the President of the United States

Public Benefit

Texas Justice Fund

To support legal, political & administrative efforts to protect fair voting.

—

Fairvote Washington

To promote electoral reform in Washington state

Human Services

Oregon Center for Voting & Elections

To teach the general public how ranked choice voting works and to promote the benefits of using it in elections.

Civil Rights

All Americans Vote

All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!

Civil Rights

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Election Administration Resource Center and the most unlike its peers is North Dakotans for Public Integrity Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the grantee network

9 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

6/9

Grantees still filing

3/9

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$402,835Community Improvement$100,000Human Services$10,000Education$10,000

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.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organisation RepresentUs 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

2get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

04Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: Committee for Ranked Choice Voting.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

high risk

~2 months of operating runway; revenue contracted over 2 filed years.

Track record & reputation

high risk

2 years of Form 990 filings, no recent filing.

Legal standing

medium risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 842565657 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on Committee for Ranked Choice Voting, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 2 months of cash on hand.
FlagSustained operations— No recent filing on record.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 5% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to RepresentUs?

Find your warmest path to RepresentUs through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

RepresentUs

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

9 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to RepresentUs?

More from the funding graph

RepresentUs

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

9 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to RepresentUs?

More from the funding graph