Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Public charity

Advocacy Action Fund Inc

Advocacy action fund, inc.

$79M
Granted FY2024still arriving
119
Grants FY2024still arriving
23
States reached
$10M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
0199% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2022–2024.

Environment$33MPublic Benefit$24MCivil Rights$21MScience & Tech$5.4MHealth$3.0MInternational$2.3MEducation$1.0MEmployment$650kOther$0
02FY2024 · 119 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 119 grants below total $70,091,201 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $79,373,701 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $9,282,500 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k10 grants · $271k
  • $50k–250k46 grants · $6.2M
  • $250k+63 grants · $64M
$250,000
Median grant
23
States reached
$46M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CAMPAIGN FOR A SAFE AND HEALTHY CALIFORNIA$10,000,000
FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION$3,500,000
FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION$3,000,000
MONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS$3,000,000
CLIMATE CENTRAL INC$2,025,000
PROJECT 218$2,000,000
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUTURES INC$2,000,000
WORKER POWER PAC$2,000,000
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC$2,000,000
AMERICA VOTES$2,000,000
FF PAC$1,600,000
MISSOURIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM$1,230,000
FF PAC$1,100,000
NEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM$1,000,000
PROGRESSIVE TURNOUT PROJECT$1,000,000
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY23–24, $1.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%EVERGREEN ACTION: $650k → 14%EVERGREEN ACTION: $200k → 14%REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $250k → 14%REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $150k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Which US states your grants reach

NH
WA
MT
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
NV
OH
PA
NJ
RI
CA
CO
NE
MO
VA
MD
AZ
TN
NC
DC
LA
GA
TX
FL

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

31%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$29M · 28 repeat orgs$65M to everyone else

28 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 57 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

28
39

Total granted

$29M
$13M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+20%
+34%

Still filing today

93%
97%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 25% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $52M 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
EnvironmentCivil RightsPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementEducationScience & TechOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • EARTHJUSTICE
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +26%
  • TM
    TRESTLE MOVEMENT FUND
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +39% · 65% of their budget
  • AC
    AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • GA
    Green Advocacy Projectgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $3.0M · revenue +205% · 90% of their budget
  • RF
    REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL
    one grant, 2022 · $2.0M · revenue -100%
  • OU
    Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights
    one grant, 2023 · $1.5M

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.

Education
2
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment
3
Climate Innovation Action Inc

To educate policymakers about climate policies generally and to directly advocate for specific legislation on climate change.

Environment
4
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
5
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
6
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
7
Cleaner Economy Coalition Inc

Driving american jobs and competitiveness by leveraging our cleaner economy and enabling u.s. manufacturers to lead in advanced energy technologies.

—
8
Coalition for Green Capital D/B/a American Green Bank Consortium

Cgc operates as a nonprofit financial institution that invests directly and through partners to transform financial markets by using public and private investing to accelerate the deployment of projects that strengthen the grid, reduce…

Environment
9
Climate Leadership Council Inc

To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.

Environment
10
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
11
Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology Inc

Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.

Science & Tech
12
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nrdc Action Fund Inc and the most unlike its peers is One Person One Vote. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyImmigrant Worker SupportCommunity FoundationsPolicy Research and AdvocacyEnvironmental Conservation …Pregnancy Support Services
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 23 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%9%<5yr14%21%5–10yr19%12%10–20yr16%32%20–35yr13%16%35–55yr16%10%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%14%<5yr14%32%5–10yr19%17%10–20yr16%19%20–35yr13%9%35–55yr16%9%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 14% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
2%2/128
the rest of the field
13%
240,396/1,819,437

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

109 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 109 of the 128 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

15
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
17
Early backer (in before they grew)
108/109
Grantees still filing
49/109
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Campaign for a Safe and Healthy CA See Schedule O For Complete Name — $11,500,000 · OtherCampaign for a Safe and Healthy CA See Schedule O For Complete NameARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS — $3,250,000 · OtherARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESSMONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS — $3,250,000 · OtherMONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTSGreen Advocacy Project — $3,000,000 · OtherFF PAC — $2,700,000 · OtherPROJECT 218 — $2,250,000 · OtherPROGRESSIVE TURNOUT PROJECT — $2,000,000 · OtherWORKER POWER PAC — $2,000,000 · OtherREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL — $2,000,000 · OtherNEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM — $2,000,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES — $2,000,000 · Other+52 more — $21,816,631 · Other+52 moreEARTHJUSTICE — $1,500,000 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICEAMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY — $1,080,000 · EnvironmentAMERICAN COUN…SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND — $1,000,000 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN THIRT…CLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA — $1,000,000 · EnvironmentCLEAN AND PRO…The Partnership Project Action Fund — $775,000 · EnvironmentThe Partnersh…FOOD & WATER ACTION FUND — $725,000 · EnvironmentFOOD & WATER …AMERICAN RIVERS INC — $718,529 · EnvironmentAMERICAN RIVE…EARTHJUSTICE ACTION — $430,000 · EnvironmentCERES INC — $394,400 · Environment+27 more — $3,980,500 · Environment+27 moreFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION — $6,500,000 · Public BenefitFUTURE FO…TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE — $630,000 · Public BenefitTAXPAYERS…PUBLIC CITIZEN INC — $600,000 · Public BenefitPUBLIC CI…+3 more — $589,200 · Public Benefit+3 moreACCELERATE CHANGE INC — $1,500,000 · Civil RightsWAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC — $1,125,000 · Civil RightsCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION — $1,000,000 · Civil RightsRED WINE & BLUE — $1,000,000 · Civil RightsCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS — $811,500 · Civil RightsCAMPION ADVOCACY FUND — $350,000 · Civil RightsORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT PROJECT INC — $300,000 · Civil Rights+7 more — $1,224,000 · Civil RightsSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUTURES INC — $2,693,000 · Science & TechCLIMATE CENTRAL INC — $2,025,000 · Science & TechAmerica Votes — $2,500,000 · Community ImprovementFUND FOR A BETTER FUTURE INC — $350,000 · Community ImprovementWESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECT — $210,000 · Community Improvement+2 more — $70,500 · Community ImprovementHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC — $2,000,000 · International+1 more — $50,000 · International
Other$57,766,631Environment$11,603,429Public Benefit$8,319,200Civil Rights$7,310,500Science & Tech$4,718,000Community Improvement$3,130,500International$2,050,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCampaign for a Safe and Healthy CA See Schedule O For Complete Name — $11,500,000 over 2y, 81% of budgetFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION — $6,500,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetMONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS — $3,250,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetGreen Advocacy Project — $3,000,000 over 1y, 90% of budgetSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUTURES INC — $2,693,000 over 1y, 53% of budgetAmerica Votes — $2,500,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetCLIMATE CENTRAL INC — $2,025,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC — $2,000,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL — $2,000,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetNEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM — $2,000,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE — $1,500,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetACCELERATE CHANGE INC — $1,500,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetOhioans United for Reproductive Rights — $1,500,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetMissourians for Constitutional Freedom — $1,480,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetEVERGREEN ACTION — $1,250,000 over 3y, 33% of budgetTRESTLE MOVEMENT FUND — $1,136,600 over 2y, 65% of budgetWAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC — $1,125,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY — $1,080,000 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetNRDC ACTION FUND INC — $1,065,500 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD ALLIANCE ADVOCATES SERVING AK HI ID IN KY AND WA — $1,000,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION — $1,000,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND — $1,000,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA — $1,000,000 over 1y, 8.2% of budgetRED WINE & BLUE — $1,000,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetOne Person One Vote — $1,000,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetFLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM — $1,000,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetFANNIE AND JOHN HERTZ FOUNDATION — $850,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS — $811,500 over 3y, 16% of budgetThe Partnership Project Action Fund — $775,000 over 3y, 18% of budgetSTRATEGIC VICTORY FUND — $750,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetFOOD & WATER ACTION FUND — $725,000 over 2y, 46% of budgetAMERICAN RIVERS INC — $718,529 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetTAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE — $630,000 over 3y, 19% of budgetPUBLIC CITIZEN INC — $600,000 over 2y, 7.9% of budgetWORKING AMERICA — $500,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCODEORG — $500,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetDIGITAL HARBOR FOUNDATION — $500,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetWORKMONEY INC — $500,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE ACTION — $430,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL — $400,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetVOTE FORWARD — $400,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetCERES INC — $394,400 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetFUND FOR A BETTER FUTURE INC — $350,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetPIPELINE SAFETY TRUST — $330,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetCOMMISSION SHIFT — $325,000 over 2y, 12% of budgetTHE COOPERATIVE IMPACT LAB — $317,000 over 1y, 43% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC — $315,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetSolar United Neighbors Action — $315,000 over 2y, 56% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Sixteen Thirty FundOpen Society Action F…League of Conservatio…America VotesTides AdvocacyEnergy Action FundOur American Future A…United States Energy …Future Forward USA Ac…Hopewell FundNew Venture FundTides Foundation
Sixteen Thirty FundDC84.7× affinity45 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Open Society Action Fund Inc · League of Conservation Voters Inc · America Votes · Tides Advocacy · Energy Action Fund · Our American Future Action · United States Energy Foundation · Future Forward USA Action · Hopewell Fund · New Venture Fund · Tides Foundation

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization Advocacy Action Fund Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 80%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Digital Harbor Foundation — 2% of income from government
  • National Consumer Law Center Inc — 1% of income from government
  • Ceres Inc — 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
8get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Advocacy Action Fund Inc?

Find your warmest path to Advocacy Action 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 128 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines