Skip to content

· Public charity

Willow Creek Action

Identify and fund organizations whose work supports american democracy.

$800k
Granted FY2023
13
Grants FY2023
5
States reached
$250k
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2023 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $128k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $410k
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$50,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$309k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Vote Rev Action Fund$250,000
Vote America$150,000
NextGen Climate America Inc$60,000
Run For Something PAC$50,000
Redeeming Babel$50,000
Center for Common Ground$50,000
Indivisible Action$50,000
Amalgamated Charitable$45,000
NEO Philanthropy Inc$25,000
Collective Impact Action$23,000
Progressive Change Campaign$15,000
One America Movement$10,000
Tides Advocacy$10,000
02The need
02

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 (FY23–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 93% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Redeeming Babel: $50k → 8%Vote America: $150k → 10%NextGen Climate America Inc: $60k → 12%NEO Philanthropy Inc: $25k → 17%Indivisible Action: $50k → 14%Center for Common Ground: $50k → 11%One America Movement: $10k → 11%Amalgamated Charitable: $45k → 17%Vote Rev Action Fund: $250k → 14%Collective Impact Action: $23k → 14%Progressive Change Campaign: $15k → 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.
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
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
2
Nextgen Climate Action

Nextgen america empowers young people to engage in the democratic process through voter registration and civic engagement on issues of public policy. this is achieved through innovative digital outreach, communications, and grassroots…

Unclassified
3
Climate Equity Action Fund

The climate equity action fund (ceaf) works hand-in-hand with community-based partners in critical states across the country to secure and sustain policy wins for climate and clean energy. building on over a decade of trust with leading…

Environment
4
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
5
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
6
One for Democracy Action Fund

One for democracy unlocks resources to build a healthy democracy by fostering meaningful relationships between philanthropists and the democracy leaders of our time.

—
7
Civica Initiatives

Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions

Community Improvement
8
Generator Collective

Generator Collective's mission is to humanize policy through storytelling by helping organize the noise of these policies and overall lower the political barrier of entry.

—
9
Bold Impact

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

Arts & Culture
10
Policy Action for a Clean Tomorrow Inc

Clean Tomorrow advances policies that reduce climate emissions by turning policy ambition into action. We work to catalyze rapid change that will accelerate the innovation and growth of clean energy.

Environment
11
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
12
Right Vote Inc
Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tides Advocacy; the most unlike its peers is Good Faith Network Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the 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 13 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VOTE REV ACTION FUND: $250,000 · Civil RightsVOTE REV ACTION FUNDVOTEAMERICA: $150,000 · Civil RightsVOTEAMERICAINDIVISIBLE ACTION: $50,000 · OtherINDIVISIBLE ACTIONRUN FOR SOMETHING PAC: $50,000 · OtherRUN FOR SOMETHING PACCollective Impact Action: $23,000 · OtherCollective Impact Act…PROGRESSIVE CHG CAMP COMM NON FED: $15,000 · OtherPROGRESSIVE CHG CAMP …TIDES ADVOCACY: $10,000 · OtherTIDES ADVOCACYCenter for Common Ground: $50,000 · Public BenefitCenter for…NEO Philanthropy Inc: $25,000 · Public BenefitNEO Philan…NEXTGEN CLIMATE AMERICA INC: $60,000 · EnvironmentGood Faith Network Inc: $50,000 · ReligionTHE ONE AMERICA MOVEMENT: $10,000 · ReligionAmalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc: $45,000 · Philanthropy
Civil Rights$400,000Other$148,000Public Benefit$75,000Environment$60,000Religion$60,000Philanthropy$45,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVOTE REV ACTION FUND: $250,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetVOTEAMERICA: $150,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetNEXTGEN CLIMATE AMERICA INC: $60,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCenter for Common Ground: $50,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetGood Faith Network Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetAmalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc: $45,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCollective Impact Action: $23,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ONE AMERICA MOVEMENT: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Tides FoundationCA12.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Willow Creek Action funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Willow Creek Action. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%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
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Willow Creek Action?

    Find your warmest path to Willow Creek Action 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 13 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Willow Creek Action’s filings →

    More from the funding graph