Skip to content
United for Democracy at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

United for Democracy

UNITED FOR DEMOCRACY seeks to educate and engage the public in making our nation's democracy and its institutions more reflective and responsive to its citizens.

$1.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$650k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through 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.

Public Benefit$1.0MArts & Culture$650kCivil Rights$335kSocial Science$50k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $90k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $310k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
$50,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$683k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ARTISTS UNITED FOR CHANGE$650,000
STAND UP AMERICA INC$500,000
OUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA PAC$150,000
EMPOWERING ARIZONA$60,000
INDEPENDENT STRATEGIC RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE$50,000
TAKE BACK THE COURT ACTION FUND$50,000
ACTION TOGETHER NEPA INC$30,000
CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC$15,000
ALL IN ACTION FUND$15,000
NAACP ARIZONA$10,000
THE RABEN GROUP LLC$10,000
PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE$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:

Its human-services grants (FY24–24, $100k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $100k → 11%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 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
Right to Democracy Project

Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories through participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building.

Civil Rights
2
Lead Pa

Cultivating the next generation of progressive leaders across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

—
3
Colorado People's Action

Colorado people's action (cpa) is a member-driven, racial justice organization dedicated to winning long-lasting progressive public policies in colorado. cpa builds power by mobilizing voters, electing our own people to office, holding…

—
4
Pennsylvania United

PA United organizes and builds power across Western PA to create

Civil Rights
5
Bold Impact

Bold Impact is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting a democracy where all communities get to thrive.

Arts & Culture
6
Electoral Collective Action

Electoral Collective Action coordinates a broad-based coalition of existing entities active in the climate justice and community organizing space to raise public awareness and educational opportunities.

Civil Rights
7
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
8
All Americans Vote

All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!

Civil Rights
9
Progressive Workers Coalition

To ensure that working class people are educated on their voting rights. The coalition engages in mobilization and educational information sessions to ensure that all workers voices are heard.

—
10
Wepower

We activate community power to redesign social systems to be just and equitable for all through (1) developing and supporting leaders and organizations and (2) leading campaigns, coalitions, and innovative initiatives.

Community Improvement
11
Pa Alliance Action

The PA Alliance Action seeks to advocate at the state level for democracy reform through grassroots activities and support of like-minded organizations on behalf of and in support of all Pennsylvanians, in particular historically…

Civil Rights
12
Electoral Collective

Electoral Collective coordinates a broad-based coalition of existing entities active in the climate justice and community organizing space to raise public awareness and educational opportunities.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Stand Up America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Progressive Leadership Initiative. 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

12 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. 12 of the 16 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
4/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ARTISTS UNITED FOR CHANGE: $650,000 · OtherARTISTS UNITED FOR CHANGEACTION TOGETHER NEPA: $230,000 · OtherACTION TOGETHER NEPAOUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA PAC: $150,000 · OtherOUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA PACINDEPENDENT STRATEGIC RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE: $50,000 · Other+2 more: $20,000 · OtherSTAND UP AMERICA INC: $500,000 · Civil RightsSTAND UP AMERICA INCTake Back The Court Action Fund: $50,000 · Civil RightsTake Back The Court Action Fund+3 more: $35,000 · Civil Rights+3 moreWORKER POWER: $150,000 · Community ImprovementEMPOWERING ARIZONA: $60,000 · Public BenefitCOMMON DEFENSE EDUCATION FUND INC: $25,000 · Public BenefitCENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC: $23,000 · Public BenefitLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $100,000 · Human Services
Other$1,100,000Civil Rights$585,000Community Improvement$150,000Public Benefit$108,000Human Services$100,000

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 budgetACTION TOGETHER NEPA: $230,000 over 2y, 7.7% of budgetWORKER POWER: $150,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $100,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCOMMON DEFENSE EDUCATION FUND INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC: $23,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNew Pennsylvania Project: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetProgressive Leadership Initiative: $10,000 over 1y, 13% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundPro-Democracy CampaignAmerica VotesOpen Society Action F…Women Donors Network …North FundOur American Future A…All Hands on Deck Net…Tides AdvocacyTides Foundation
Sixteen Thirty FundDC17.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Pro-Democracy Campaign · America Votes · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Women Donors Network Action · North Fund · Our American Future Action · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Advocacy · Tides Foundation

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–90%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to United for Democracy?

    Find your warmest path to United for Democracy 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 16 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 United for Democracy’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