Skip to content
Unite and Renew Educational Foundation Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Unite and Renew Educational Foundation Inc

The organization grants to organizations that engage in public education and research in support of lasting structural improvements to american democracy and other non-partisan democracy support measures.

$1.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$300k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Public Benefit$3.5MPhilanthropy$440kEducation$400k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k3 grants · $407k
  • $250k+2 grants · $600k
$187,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$54k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT$300,000
STATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER INC$300,000
NEW POLITICS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY$187,000
VOTING RIGHTS LAB$120,000
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES$100,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–24, $625k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%NEW POLITICS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY: $250k → 16%NEW POLITICS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY: $188k → 16%NEW POLITICS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY: $187k → 16%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.
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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.5M · 5 repeat orgs$875k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +94% since the first grant, against -56% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
3

Total granted

$3.5M
$875k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+94%
-56%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
Civil RightsHuman ServicesPhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +69%
  • SU
    STATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $950k · revenue +129%
  • NP
    NEW POLITICS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $625k · revenue +94%

Funded once

  • UA
    UNITE AMERICA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $500k · revenue +152%
  • AF
    ALASKANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $225k · revenue -56%
  • TC
    The Center for Election Innovation & Research
    one grant, 2022 · $150k · revenue -91%
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
Secure Democracy Usa

Secure Democracy USA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to build stronger elections, state by state.

Civil Rights
2
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
3
Protect Democracy United

The mission of protect democracy united is to prevent our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government. we do this by working to strengthen the checks and balances that have held the executive branch accountable to…

—
4
Secure Election Project Inc

To preserve and protect the sanctity of our vote by promoting commonsense, nonpartisan election security reforms that prevent hacking and fraud without restricting eligible citizens from accessing the polls.

Public Benefit
5
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…

Social Science
6
Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—
7
States United Action

States united action is a nonpartisan section 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization with a mission to protect our elections and our democracy. (continued on schedule o)states united action advances election protection, holds democracy violators…

Civil Rights
8
People's Independent Commission

Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay

—
9
Center for Election Science

The organization empowers people with voting methods that strengthen democracy.

Civil Rights
10
Fund for States

Fund for states is dedicated to building a democracy that works for every voter. we work with state and local election officials and community organizations to educate the public, combat disinformation, and restore trust in the electoral…

Public Benefit
11
Partners in Democracy Inc

To drive democracy renovation at the state-level based on a 360 degree standard for healthy democracy. the 360 degree standard focuses on securing the right of citizens to vote, to run for office, and to see and shape their community.

—
12
Commission On Presidential Debates

Organize general election presidential and vice-presidential debates

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is States United Democracy Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Alaskans for Better Elections Foundation. 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

8 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT: $1,100,000 · Civil RightsPROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECTSTATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER INC: $950,000 · Civil RightsSTATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER INCUNITE AMERICA INC: $500,000 · Civil RightsUNITE AMERICA INCALASKANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS FOUNDATION: $225,000 · Civil RightsALASKANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS FOUNDATIONThe Center for Election Innovation & Research: $150,000 · Civil RightsNEW POLITICS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY INC: $625,000 · Human ServicesNEW POLITICS LEA…SD Foundation: $440,000 · PhilanthropySD Foundati…AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: $400,000 · EducationAMERICAN A…
Civil Rights$2,925,000Human Services$625,000Philanthropy$440,000Education$400,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT: $1,100,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetSTATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER INC: $950,000 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetNEW POLITICS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY INC: $625,000 over 3y, 10.0% of budgetUNITE AMERICA INC: $500,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetSD Foundation: $440,000 over 3y, 3.7% of budgetAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: $400,000 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetALASKANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS FOUNDATION: $225,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetThe Center for Election Innovation & Research: $150,000 over 1y, 0.6% 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.

The William & Flora H…Silicon Valley Commun…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
The William & Flora Hewlett FoundationCA13.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift 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 Unite and Renew Educational Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Unite and Renew Educational Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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, FY20–25
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Unite and Renew Educational Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Unite and Renew Educational Foundation Inc 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 8 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 Unite and Renew Educational’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