· Public charity
Stand for Children Inc
Stand for children is a unique catalyst for educational success and social progress, to create a brighter future for us all.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k4 grants · $109k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $344k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| STAND FOR CHILDREN AZ IEC | $750,000 |
| PUBLIC SCHOOLS STRONG | $250,000 |
| STAND FOR CHILDREN OR PAC | $223,729 |
| BETTER SCHOOLS FOR A STRONGER COLORADO | $120,000 |
| CITIZENS FOR CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FUTURE | $30,000 |
| STAND FOR CHILDREN ILLINOIS PAC | $29,100 |
| ROCKY MOUNTAIN WAY | $25,000 |
| STAND FOR CHILDREN WASHINGTON PAC | $24,499 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–22, $151k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
12 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $305k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- IIINVEST IN ARIZONA (SPONSORED BY AEA AND STAND FOR CHILDREN)3× · 2020–2022 · $7.9M
- SFSTAND FOR CHILDREN AZ IEC5× · 2021–2025 · $2.5M
- SFSTAND FOR CHILDREN OR PAC4× · 2022–2025 · $1.4M
Funded once
- OCOklahomas Children Our Future Incone grant, 2017 · $975k · revenue -95%
- OOOUR OREGONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $625k · revenue +43%
- GSGRANITE STATE PROGRESSone grant, 2022 · $425k · revenue +8%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Supporting ballot issues put forth by aurora public schools.
Support ballot measure
Support measure to bring ranked choice voting to Oregonians
To oppose statewide ballot measures that would restrict local district revenue and support statewide ballot measures that would protect local district revenue.
To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact
Supports state ballot Measure 113 that will hold politicians accountable
Support state initative petition
To educate and inform voters
Protect AR Constitution is a grassroots, citizen-led effort to defeat the legislatures referred amendment which would change the threshhold of passage for ballot measures to a 60% super majority. We protect the constitutional rights of…
Public education/advocacy
Educate the general public about important policy issues.
Great education colorado action fund is a nonpartisan, statewide, nonprofit dedicated to improving investment in public education in colorado. through education empowerment, the organization reaches the most powerful voices in the…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Save Our Schools Arizona and the most unlike its peers is Oregonians United Against Profiling. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 16 of the 37 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds Oklahomas Children Our Future Inc ↗
- Who funds OUR OREGON ↗
- Who funds GRANITE STATE PROGRESS ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS NORTH CAROLINA ACTION ↗
- Who funds SAVE OUR SCHOOLS ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC SCHOOLS STRONG ↗
- Who funds FOR DENVERS KIDS ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds 50CAN ACTION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Dallas Votes 4 Kids ↗
- Who funds TENNESSEANS FOR STUDENT SUCCESS INC ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS FOR CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FUTURE ↗
- Who funds NO ON 2109 COMMITEE ↗
- Who funds COLORADANS FOR PROSPERITY ↗
- Who funds RED WINE & BLUE ↗
- Who funds Oregonians United Against Profiling ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Education Reform Now Advocacy Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Stand for Children Inc 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.
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 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.