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

· Public charity

RepresentUs Education Fund

Represent.Us Education Fund (RUEF) is a national, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) Organization working for a US government that is truly accountable to the people, not just the powerful.

$574k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$514k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Public Benefit$7.1MScience & Tech$100kEducation$35kEnvironment$19kCivil Rights$10k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $60k
  • $250k+1 grant · $514k
$40,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$3.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RepresentUs$513,793
Voter Choice Arizona$40,000
Oregon Center for Voting & Elections$20,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%RepresentUs: $1.3M → 12%Voter Choice Education Fund: $20k → 16%National Association of Non Partisa: $10k → 11%Alliance for Better Arkansas INC: $25k → 14%League of Women Voters of Arkansas: $11k → 17%The Center for Civic Alternatives: $15k → 14%Oregon Center for Voting & Elections: $20k → 12%Common Cause Rhode Island: $8k → 14%Eternal Vigilance Action: $30k → 6%The Trustees of Princeton University: $100k → 11%Keep our Republic Inc: $50k → 6%Vt Public Interest Research And Edu: $19k → 9%RepresentUs: $1.3M → 12%National Association of Non Partisa: $10k → 11%RepresentUs: $1.3M → 12%RepresentUs: $730k → 12%Represent Us: $603k → 12%Represent Us: $571k → 12%RepresentUs: $514k → 12%RepresentUs: $511k → 12%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
MA
OR
NJ
RI
CA
VA
AZ
AR
DC
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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$6.9M · 3 repeat orgs$312k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -19% since the first grant, against -34% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
10

Total granted

$6.9M
$292k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-19%
-34%

Still filing today

100%
70%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsPublic BenefitEducationEnvironmentOther
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

  • R
    RepresentUs
    8× · 2017–2024 · $6.8M · revenue -36% · 46% of their budget
  • VC
    VOTER CHOICE ARIZONA
    2× · 2023–2024 · $50k · revenue -19%
  • NA
    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NONPARTISAN REFORMERS
    2× · 2019–2020 · $20k · revenue +19%

Funded once

  • The Trustees of Princeton University
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue -34%
  • KO
    KEEP OUR REPUBLIC INC
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue -100%
  • EV
    Eternal Vigilance Action Incgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $30k · revenue +257%
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
Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—
2
Protect Colorados Vote

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

—
3
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
4
Yes On National Popular Vote

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

—
5
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.

—
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
Election Watch Inc

Research analyze publish information to public on elections election systems laws and campaign financing.

Civil Rights
8
Common Cause Education Fund

The common cause education fund employs research, outreach, educational programming, and coalition building to increase public understanding of how our democracy works, empower citizens to hold their government accountable, and promote…

Public Benefit
9
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
10
Civica Initiatives

Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions

Community Improvement
11
Texas Justice Fund

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

—
12
Upvote Virginia

Upvote virginia is a democracy reform organization dedicated to elevating the voices of virginia voters through nonpartisan education, advocacy, and grassroots engagement.

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 The Trustees of Princeton University. 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

11 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. 11 of the 14 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
4/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RepresentUs: $6,844,302 · Public BenefitRepresentUs+1 more: $50,000 · Public BenefitKEEP OUR REPUBLIC INC: $49,500 · OtherAlliance for Better Arkansas INC: $25,000 · OtherNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NONPARTISAN REFORMERS: $20,000 · OtherDemocracy Maine: $15,000 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARKANSAS INC: $11,000 · OtherCOMMON CAUSE: $7,500 · OtherThe Trustees of Princeton University: $100,000 · EducationVOTER CHOICE EDUCATION FUND INC: $20,000 · EducationEternal Vigilance Action Inc: $30,000 · Civil RightsOREGON CENTER FOR VOTING & ELECTIONS: $20,000 · Civil RightsTHE CENTER FOR CIVIC ALTERNATIVES: $15,000 · Civil RightsVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH & EDUCATION FUND INC: $18,750 · Environment
Public Benefit$6,894,302Other$128,000Education$120,000Civil Rights$65,000Environment$18,750

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 budgetRepresentUs: $6,844,302 over 8y, 46% of budgetThe Trustees of Princeton University: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVOTER CHOICE ARIZONA: $50,000 over 2y, 23% of budgetEternal Vigilance Action Inc: $30,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NONPARTISAN REFORMERS: $20,000 over 2y, 9.0% of budgetOREGON CENTER FOR VOTING & ELECTIONS: $20,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH & EDUCATION FUND INC: $18,750 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR CIVIC ALTERNATIVES: $15,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetCOMMON CAUSE: $7,500 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.

Unite America Institu…National Philanthropi…
Unite America Institute IncCO15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Unite America Institute Inc · National Philanthropic Trust

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 11%
  • The Trustees of Princeton University: 11% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
5get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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 14 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 Education’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