Skip to content
Think Big America at a glance

· Public charity

Think Big America

THINK BIG AMERICA is a social welfare organization that is organized and operates under section 501(c)(4) of the internal revenue code.

$4.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
18
Grants FY2025still arriving
11
States reached
$790k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through 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, FY2024 to 2025.

Civil Rights$4.7MPublic Benefit$1.5MHealth$1.1MEducation$125kReligion$30kFood & Nutrition$25k
02FY2025 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 18 grants below total $3,800,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,097,500 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $297,500 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $95k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $465k
  • $250k+6 grants · $3.2M
$50,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$325k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DAKOTANS FOR HEALTH$790,000
ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS$750,000
NEVADA ALLIANCE$550,000
FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY$500,000
NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM$400,000
MISSOURIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM$250,000
FREEDOM IN REPRODUCTION MARYLAND$240,000
SAVE OUR SCHOOLS ARIZONA$75,000
NARAL PRO-CHOICE OHIO$50,000
NEBRASKA FUTURE FUND$50,000
MEN4CHOICE$50,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ADVOCATES OF VIRGINIA$25,000
ANOTHER CHANCE BAPTIST CHURCH$20,000
NH HOUSE DEMOCRATIC VICTORY CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE$10,000
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY$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 (FY24–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 56% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS: $750k → 11%BATTLEGROUND INDIAN COUNTRY INC: $10k → 28%NEBRASKA FUTURE FUND: $50k → 12%NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $400k → 13%MT Securing Reproductive Righ: $500k → 9%Americans for Contraception: $250k → 14%Floridians Protecting Freedom: $500k → 15%FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY: $500k → 19%OH United for Reproductive Ri: $250k → 15%NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio: $250k → 17%MEN4CHOICE: $50k → 14%Friends of Russet Perry: $25k → 4%VanValkenburg for Virginia: $25k → 9%Joel Griffin for Virginia: $25k → 15%Democratic Party of Virginia: $150k → 22%NV for Reproductive Freedom: $1.1M → 10%NEVADA ALLIANCE: $550k → 13%FREEDOM IN REPRODUCTION MARYLAND: $240k → 19%NH SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS: $10k → 7%Arizona for Abortion Access: $250k → 11%Montana Democratic Party: $25k → 9%NARAL PRO-CHOICE OHIO: $50k → 17%ANOTHER CHANCE BAPTIST CHURCH: $20k → 14%PLANNED PARENTHOOD ADVOCATES OF VIRGINIA: $25k → 22%Nevada Alliance: $100k → 13%NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: $10k → 7%GREATER ST JOHN BIBLE CHURCH: $10k → 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
MT
IL
NV
SD
OH
NE
MO
VA
MD
AZ
DC
FL
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.

28%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.1M · 4 repeat orgs$5.3M to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
12

Total granted

$2.1M
$3.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

75%
42%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.4M went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’24’25
Community ImprovementCivil RightsHealthReligionOther
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

  • AF
    ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS
    2× · 2024–2025 · $1.0M
  • NA
    NEVADA ALLIANCE
    2× · 2024–2025 · $650k · revenue 0%
  • AF
    ABORTION FORWARD
    2× · 2024–2025 · $300k · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • NF
    NEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
    one grant, 2024 · $1.1M
  • FP
    FLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM
    one grant, 2024 · $500k
  • MS
    MONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
    one grant, 2024 · $500k
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
Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom Pac

Ballot issue political action committee advocating for the passage of a constitutional amendment in the State of Ohio to protect reproductive freedom.

—
2
MEN4CHOICE Advocacy

Mobile Male Allies in the Fight for Reproductive Freedoms

Civil Rights
3
Abortion Forward Alliance

Abortion forward alliance uses public education to develop a constituency that supports the right of every ohioan to make personal choices about a full range of reproductive options, including legal abortion.

Civil Rights
4
Protect Women Ohio Action Inc

Protect Women Ohio Action is a Section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization and registered ballot committee in the State of Ohio engaged in advocacy activities related to the "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and…

—
5
Mayor Breed's Committee for Reproductive Freedom

Ballot measure committee supporting Measure O: San Francisco Reproductive Freedom Act

—
6
Pro-Choice North Carolina

To support and protect, as a fundamental right and value, a woman's freedom to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices.

Health
7
Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom

To support a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive freedom in colorado.

—
8
Protect Colorados Vote

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

—
9
Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Inc

Our mission is to advocate for the right of all Kentuckians to exercise reproductive and religious freedom consistent with their beliefs. We use advocacy, education, and outreach to support access to reproductive health services, including…

—
10
Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom

Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, Inc. is a coalition of statewide reproductive heal, rights, and justice organizations working to secure abortion access and protect reproductive freedom in Ohio.

—
11
Conservative Agenda for America

Conservative Agenda for America stands for the sanctity of life and the protection of women by educating citizens about the dangers of abortion.

—
12
Equal Rights for All Petition

Amends Constitution: Specifies that prohibited discrimination includes discrimination concerning gender identity/pregnancy, related health decisions, sexual orientation

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Floridians Protecting Freedom; the most unlike its peers is Greater St John Bible Church. 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. 14 of the 30 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
3/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $1,150,000 · OtherNEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS: $1,000,000 · OtherARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESSDAKOTANS FOR HEALTH: $790,000 · OtherDAKOTANS FOR HEALTHNEVADA ALLIANCE: $650,000 · OtherNEVADA ALLIANCEFLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM: $500,000 · OtherFLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOMMONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: $500,000 · OtherMONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTSFLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY: $500,000 · OtherFLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTYABORTION FORWARD: $300,000 · OtherAMERICANS FOR CONTRACEPTION: $250,000 · OtherMissourians for Constitutional Freedom: $250,000 · OtherOhioans United for Reproductive Rights: $250,000 · OtherFreedom in Reproduction Maryland Inc: $240,000 · Other+14 more: $455,000 · Other+14 moreNEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $400,000 · Civil RightsSAVE OUR SCHOOLS ARIZONA: $125,000 · Community ImprovementMEN4CHOICE EDUCATION: $50,000 · HealthGreater St John Bible Church: $10,000 · Religion
Other$6,835,000Civil Rights$400,000Community Improvement$125,000Health$50,000Religion$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 budgetNEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $1,150,000 over 1y, 9.9% of budgetNEVADA ALLIANCE: $650,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetFLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM: $500,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetMONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: $500,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetABORTION FORWARD: $300,000 over 2y, 21% of budgetAMERICANS FOR CONTRACEPTION: $250,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetMissourians for Constitutional Freedom: $250,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetSAVE OUR SCHOOLS ARIZONA: $125,000 over 2y, 7.8% of budgetMEN4CHOICE EDUCATION: $50,000 over 1y, 3.2% 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…Sixteen Thirty FundPlanned Parenthood Ac…The Fairness ProjectGlobal Impact Social …Advocacy Action Fund …Planned Parenthood Fe…Hopewell FundAmerican Civil Libert…Reproductive Freedom …American Civil Libert…Our American Future A…
Open Society Action Fund IncNY23.7× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Open Society Action Fund Inc · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc · The Fairness Project · Global Impact Social Welfare Fund · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · Hopewell Fund · American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc · Reproductive Freedom for All · American Civil Liberties Union Inc · Our American Future Action

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 Think Big America funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Think Big America. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Think Big America?

    Find your warmest path to Think Big America 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 30 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 Think Big America’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