Skip to content
Reset Tech Action at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Reset Tech Action

To protect the public against digital threats to security, safety, and, fundamental rights.

$2.8M
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$350k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2024.

Civil Rights$885kEnvironment$175kCommunity Improvement$150kHealth$125kPublic Benefit$100kCrime & Legal$22kEducation$10k
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $1,445,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,844,598 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,399,598 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 · FY2024

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $60k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $775k
  • $250k+2 grants · $610k
$100,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$3.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BLACK MEN VOTE CIVIC ACTION FUND$350,000
ONYX IMPACT INC$260,000
SUMOFUS$150,000
SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND$150,000
PARENTS TOGETHER ACTION$125,000
ULTRA VIOLET ACTION$100,000
EATING DISORDERS COALITION FOR RESE$100,000
VOTO LATINO$50,000
GOODNATION ACTION INC$50,000
GLOBAL IMPACT SOCIAL WELFARE FUND$50,000
SUICIDE AWARENESS VOICES OF EDUCATI$25,000
PLURO LABS$25,000
MOTHERS AGAINST MEDIA ADDICTION INC$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%SUICIDE AWARENESS VOICES OF EDUCATI: $25k → 11%SUMOFUS: $150k → 10%MOTHERS AGAINST MEDIA ADDICTION INC: $10k → 17%BLACK MEN VOTE CIVIC ACTION FUND: $350k → 14%ONYX IMPACT INC: $260k → 13%GLOBAL IMPACT SOCIAL WELFARE FUND: $50k → 9%EATING DISORDERS COALITION FOR RESE: $100k → 11%GOODNATION ACTION INC: $50k → 17%SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $150k → 14%PLURO LABS: $25k → 14%ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER: $22k → 14%PARENTS TOGETHER ACTION: $125k → 14%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $1.4M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$1.1M · 81% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: MONITOR THREATS · SUPPORT THEIR MISSIO · DIGITAL RIGHTS

East Asia and the Pacific$188k · 13% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CORE FUNDING RESET

South America$73k · 5% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: SUPPORT CLAD · ENHACING DIGITAL COM

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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
UltraViolet Education Fund

Ultraviolet education fund (uvef) is a 501c3 organization. ultraviolet is the premier national organization advocating for gender justice issues using creative, strategic campaigning and digital-first organizing. ultraviolet drives…

Civil Rights
2
Voteamerica

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

Civil Rights
3
The Alliance for Media Arts Culture Inc

To facilitate collaboration, innovation, strategic growth and cultural impact for the media arts field. We are a network of networks; we embolden creative media organization and artists and connect them with the world.

Arts & Culture
4
Fund for Justice

Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…

Crime & Legal
5
Fdd Action

FDD Action is a non-profit, non-partisan 504(c)4 organization established to advocate for effective policies to promote U.S. National Security and defend free nations.

Community Improvement
6
One Action

ONE Action's advocacy work plays a valuable role in persuading policy makers to protect, and where possible, increase funding for ONE Action's core priorities. ONE Action's supporters are highly engaged advocates and contributed valuable…

Civil Rights
7
Plus Action Fund

Advocacy for Paid Family Leave for workers in the US

—
8
Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology Inc

Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.

Science & Tech
9
Bold Impact

Bold Impact is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting a democracy where all communities get to thrive.

Arts & Culture
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
Register America

The organization is founded for social welfare purposes, including assisting with voter registration and advocating for policies which lead to increased voter registration in the united states.

—
12
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New Venture Fund; the most unlike its peers is Eating Disorders Coalition for Research Policy and Action Co Jaffe Management. 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

14 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
2/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BLACK MEN VOTE CIVIC ACTION FUND: $350,000 · Civil RightsBLACK MEN VOTE CIVIC ACTION FUNDONYX IMPACT INC: $260,000 · Civil RightsONYX IMPACT INCEKO AND AFFILIATE: $150,000 · Civil RightsEKO AND AFFILIATEGoodnation Action Inc: $50,000 · Civil RightsGoodnation Action Inc+1 more: $22,373 · Civil RightsParentsTogether Action: $125,000 · Public BenefitParentsTogether Actio…UltraViolet Action: $100,000 · Public BenefitUltraViolet ActionGlobal Impact Social Welfare Fund: $50,000 · Public BenefitGlobal Impact Social …SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $150,000 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN THIRT…NEW VENTURE FUND: $25,000 · EnvironmentNEW VENTURE F…EATING DISORDERS COALITION FOR RESEARCH POLICY AND ACTION CO JAFFE MANAGEMENT: $100,000 · HealthVOTO LATINO INC: $50,000 · OtherSuicide Awareness Voices of Education: $25,000 · Arts & CultureMOTHERS AGAINST MEDIA ADDICTION: $10,000 · Education
Civil Rights$832,373Public Benefit$275,000Environment$175,000Health$100,000Other$50,000Arts & Culture$25,000Education$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$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBLACK MEN VOTE CIVIC ACTION FUND: $350,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetONYX IMPACT INC: $260,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetEKO AND AFFILIATE: $150,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $150,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetParentsTogether Action: $125,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetUltraViolet Action: $100,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetEATING DISORDERS COALITION FOR RESEARCH POLICY AND ACTION CO JAFFE MANAGEMENT: $100,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetVOTO LATINO INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetGoodnation Action Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetGlobal Impact Social Welfare Fund: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSuicide Awareness Voices of Education: $25,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER: $22,373 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetMOTHERS AGAINST MEDIA ADDICTION: $10,000 over 1y, 1.6% 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.

Open Society Action F…Tides FoundationFuture Forward USA Ac…America VotesNational Education As…Sixteen Thirty Fund
Open Society Action Fund IncNY15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Open Society Action Fund Inc · Tides Foundation · Future Forward USA Action · America Votes · National Education Association of the United States · Sixteen Thirty 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 Reset Tech Action funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Reset Tech Action. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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
    0get 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, FY20–24
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Reset Tech Action?

    Find your warmest path to Reset Tech 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 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 Reset Tech 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