Skip to content
Unite and Renew Fund Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Unite and Renew Fund Inc

The purpose of the organization shall be to engage in public policy and issue advocacy in support of lasting structural improvements to american democracy and other non-partisan democracy reform measures.

$1.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$500k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Public Benefit$4.3M
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k3 grants · $342k
  • $250k+2 grants · $950k
$180,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$168k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITIZENS NOT POLITICIANS$500,000
STATES UNITED ACTION INC$450,000
SECURE DEMOCRACY USA$180,000
UNITED TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY$100,000
NEW POLITICS$62,000
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 (FY23–23, $63k) 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: $63k → 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.

68%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.0M · 4 repeat orgs$1.4M to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
5

Total granted

$3.0M
$813k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

75%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $562k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’22’23’24
Civil RightsPublic BenefitHuman ServicesOther
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

  • PD
    PROTECT DEMOCRACY UNITED
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.0M · revenue -72%
  • SU
    STATES UNITED ACTION
    3× · 2022–2024 · $950k · revenue +335% · 34% of their budget
  • SD
    Secure Democracy
    3× · 2022–2024 · $660k · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • NV
    NEVADA VOTERS FIRST
    one grant, 2022 · $250k · revenue -100%
  • KC
    KEEP COUNTRY FIRST POLICY ACTION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $200k · revenue -49%
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES
    one grant, 2023 · $150k · revenue +18%
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
Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—
2
Ballot Pa Action

Informed and educated the public and lawmakers about the benefits of including independent voters in Pennsylvania's primary elections.

Civil Rights
3
Vote for America

Our mission is to increase voting in elections across the United States by offering nonpartisan information primarily across social media and podcast platforms.

Public Benefit
4
Protect Colorados Vote

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

—
5
Open Democracy Action

Bring about and safeguard political equality for the people of New Hampshire. This will only happen through an open, accountable, and trusted democratic government, of, by, and for the people, that is free from the corrupting influence of…

—
6
Yes On National Popular Vote

Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote

—
7
One Person One Vote

Ballot issue political action committee to advocate for the defeat of a constitutional amendment that would require a 60% threshold for any future constitutional amendments.

—
8
Upstate Action Alliance

Non-PartisanVoter Educ Advocacy

Civil Rights
9
Secure Democracy Usa

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

Civil Rights
10
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
11
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
12
Democracyfirst

Democracyfirst is a 501(c)4 dedicated to restoring public trust in the electoral system, protecting free and fair elections, and renewing the pro-democracy consensus in american politics.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Protect Democracy United; the most unlike its peers is Secure Democracy. 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

10 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. 10 of the 11 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/10
Grantees still filing
3/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PROTECT DEMOCRACY UNITED: $1,000,000 · OtherPROTECT DEMOCRACY UNITEDSecure Democracy: $660,000 · OtherSecure DemocracyCitizens Not Politicians: $500,000 · OtherCitizens Not PoliticiansNEVADA VOTERS FIRST: $250,000 · OtherNEVADA VOTERS FIRSTLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES: $150,000 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATESFairMapsVirginia: $150,000 · OtherFairMapsVirginia+1 more: $62,000 · OtherSTATES UNITED ACTION: $950,000 · Civil RightsSTATES UNITED ACTIONKEEP COUNTRY FIRST POLICY ACTION INC: $200,000 · Civil RightsKEEP COUNTRY FIRST POLICY ACTI…Alaskans for Better Elections: $350,000 · Public BenefitAlaskans …NEW POLITICS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY INC: $63,000 · Human Services
Other$2,772,000Civil Rights$1,150,000Public Benefit$350,000Human Services$63,000

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 UNITED: $1,000,000 over 3y, 6.0% of budgetSTATES UNITED ACTION: $950,000 over 3y, 34% of budgetCitizens Not Politicians: $500,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetAlaskans for Better Elections: $350,000 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetNEVADA VOTERS FIRST: $250,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetKEEP COUNTRY FIRST POLICY ACTION INC: $200,000 over 1y, 6.7% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES: $150,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetFairMapsVirginia: $150,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetNEW POLITICS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY INC: $63,000 over 1y, 2.5% 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.

Democracy Fund Voice …Sixteen Thirty Fund
Democracy Fund Voice IncDC15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Democracy Fund Voice Inc · 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 Unite and Renew Fund Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Unite and Renew Fund Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Unite and Renew Fund Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Unite and Renew Fund 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 11 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’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