Skip to content
Stand for Children Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$1.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$750k
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 2025.

Public Benefit$7.9MEducation$4.4MYouth Development$3.4MCivil Rights$2.4MHuman Services$736kPhilanthropy$547kHealth$100k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $109k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $344k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.0M
$120,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%50CAN ACTION FUND INC: $111k → 14%50CAN ACTION FUND INC: $40k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

NH
WA
IL
OR
IN
OH
CO
AZ
TN
NC
DC
OK
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$15M · 12 repeat orgs$4.6M to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
22

Total granted

$15M
$4.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-6%
+8%

Still filing today

8%
36%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $305k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Civil RightsHuman ServicesPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • II
    INVEST IN ARIZONA (SPONSORED BY AEA AND STAND FOR CHILDREN)
    3× · 2020–2022 · $7.9M
  • SF
    STAND FOR CHILDREN AZ IEC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $2.5M
  • SF
    STAND FOR CHILDREN OR PAC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1.4M

Funded once

  • OC
    Oklahomas Children Our Future Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $975k · revenue -95%
  • OO
    OUR OREGONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $625k · revenue +43%
  • GS
    GRANITE STATE PROGRESS
    one grant, 2022 · $425k · revenue +8%
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
Aurora Citizens for Excellent Education

Supporting ballot issues put forth by aurora public schools.

—
2
Yes for Portland Clean Energy Fund

Support ballot measure

—
3
Yes on 117

Support measure to bring ranked choice voting to Oregonians

—
4
Coloradans for Local Communities

To oppose statewide ballot measures that would restrict local district revenue and support statewide ballot measures that would protect local district revenue.

—
5
Protect Colorados Vote

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

—
6
Vote Yes on 113

Supports state ballot Measure 113 that will hold politicians accountable

—
7
Transparent Elections for Grassroots Engagement 1

Support state initative petition

—
8
Colorado League of Responsible Voters

To educate and inform voters

—
9
Protect Ar Constitution

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…

—
10
Washington Association of Area Agencies on Aging

Public education/advocacy

—
11
Colorado Civic Education

Educate the general public about important policy issues.

Civil Rights
12
Great Education Colorado Action Fund

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…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Save Our Schools Arizona; 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.
04the grantee network

16 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. 16 of the 37 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/16
Grantees still filing
8/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INVEST IN ARIZONA (SPONSORED BY AEA AND STAND FOR CHILDREN): $7,897,506 · OtherINVEST IN ARIZONA (SPONSORED BY AEA AND STAND FOR CHILDREN)STAND FOR CHILDREN AZ IEC: $2,503,812 · OtherSTAND FOR CHILDREN AZ IECSTAND FOR CHILDREN OR PAC: $1,350,229 · OtherSTAND FOR CHILDREN OR PACOklahomas Children Our Future Inc: $975,000 · OtherOklahomas Children Our Future IncBETTER SCHOOLS FOR A STRONGER COLORADO: $910,733 · OtherSTAND FOR CHILDREN LOUISIANA IEC: $890,894 · Other+25 more: $3,431,900 · Other+25 moreOUR OREGON: $625,000 · Human Services50CAN ACTION FUND INC: $150,500 · Human ServicesPROGRESS NORTH CAROLINA ACTION: $415,000 · Public BenefitSAVE OUR SCHOOLS ARIZONA: $260,000 · Community ImprovementTENNESSEANS FOR STUDENT SUCCESS INC: $40,000 · Civil RightsRED WINE & BLUE: $20,000 · Civil Rights
Other$17,960,074Human Services$775,500Public Benefit$415,000Community Improvement$260,000Civil Rights$60,000

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 budgetPROGRESS NORTH CAROLINA ACTION: $415,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetSAVE OUR SCHOOLS ARIZONA: $260,000 over 1y, 42% of budgetARIZONA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION: $200,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budget50CAN ACTION FUND INC: $150,500 over 2y, 6.3% of budgetTENNESSEANS FOR STUDENT SUCCESS INC: $40,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetNO ON 2109 COMMITEE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetRED WINE & BLUE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetOregonians United Against Profiling: $6,500 over 1y, 11% 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.

  • 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 ARIZONA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds FOR DENVERS KIDS ↗
  • 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 ↗

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.

Sixteen Thirty FundEducation Reform Now …
Sixteen Thirty FundDC18.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Education Reform Now Advocacy Inc

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 Stand for Children Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Stand for Children Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%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
    1get no government money at all
    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 37 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Stand for Children’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