Skip to content
RepresentUs at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

RepresentUs

RepresentUs is America's leading nonpartisan grassroots organization working for a government accountable to the people.

$30k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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 2024.

Public Benefit$362kCivil Rights$130kEnvironment$31k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$29,796
Median grant
1
States reached
$7.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Winning Connection$29,796
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 (FY23–23, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Latino Community Fund of Washington: $10k → 9%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

ME
VT
WA
ND
NY
MA
NV
AR
NC
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 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
Yes On National Popular Vote

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

—
2
Protect Colorados Vote

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

—
3
One Person One Vote

Ballot issue political action committee to advocate for the defeat of a constitutional amendment that would require a 60% threshold for any future constitutional amendments.

—
4
Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—
5
Election Reformers Network Inc

To strengthen democracy in the United States through an assessment of US voting systems and US election administration from the perspective of global best practices.

Civil Rights
6
Democracy for America Advocacy Fund

Democracy for America Advocacy Fund (DFA-AF) is a 501(c)(4) organization that advocates for fair, just, inclusive, and equitable public policies that benefit all, not just a few. DFA-AF was launched to take on structural democracy reform…

—
7
Texas Justice Fund

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

—
8
Voter Protection Corps Foundation

Voter Protection Corps Foundation educates the public on how all eligible voters can participate in free and fair elections We provide nonpartisan education and resources to the public Our programs support community leaders volunteers and…

Civil Rights
9
Ballot Pa Action

Informed and educated the public and lawmakers about the benefits of including independent voters in Pennsylvania's primary elections.

Civil Rights
10
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
11
Elevated Voices Inc

Voter education around policy

—
12
Upstate Action Alliance

Non-PartisanVoter Educ Advocacy

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Voter Choice Education Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Latino Community Fund of Washington State. 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

9 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. 9 of the 13 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/9
Grantees still filing
2/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Un-PAC Action: $100,000 · OtherUn-PAC ActionNEVADA VOTERS FIRST: $100,000 · OtherNEVADA VOTERS FIRSTPROJECT MAINE ELECTIONS: $50,000 · OtherPROJECT MAINE ELECTIONSNORTH DAKOTANS FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY INC: $35,000 · OtherNORTH DAKOTANS FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY INCVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC: $31,250 · OtherVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INCWinning Connection: $29,796 · OtherWinning ConnectionELECTION ADMINISTRATION RESOURCE CENTER: $27,539 · OtherELECTION ADMINISTRATION RESOURCE CENTER+3 more: $29,250 · Other+3 moreCOMMITTEE FOR RANKED CHOICE VOTING NYC INC: $100,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMITTEE FOR RANKED …Latino Community Fund of Washington State: $10,000 · Human ServicesVOTER CHOICE EDUCATION FUND INC: $10,000 · Education
Other$402,835Community Improvement$100,000Human Services$10,000Education$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$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOMMITTEE FOR RANKED CHOICE VOTING NYC INC: $100,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetNEVADA VOTERS FIRST: $100,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC: $31,250 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetELECTION ADMINISTRATION RESOURCE CENTER: $27,539 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetCOMMON CAUSE: $11,250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLatino Community Fund of Washington State: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetProtect AR Constitution: $8,000 over 1y, 1.0% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization RepresentUs funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from RepresentUs. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%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
    2get 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.

    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 13 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 RepresentUs’ 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