Skip to content
Advocacy Action Fund Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Advocacy Action Fund Inc

Advocacy action fund, inc.

$79M
Granted FY2024still arriving
119
Grants FY2024still arriving
23
States reached
$10M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 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

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 119 grants below total $70,091,201, the rows itemized in this filing. The $79,373,701 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $9,282,500 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized 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
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC$2,000,000
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUTURES INC$2,000,000
AMERICA VOTES$2,000,000
PROJECT 218$2,000,000
WORKER POWER PAC$2,000,000
FF PAC$1,600,000
MISSOURIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM$1,230,000
FF PAC$1,100,000
ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS$1,000,000
NEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM$1,000,000
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 (FY23–24, $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 its 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
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.

Which US states its 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
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.

31%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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

+12%
+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
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

  • 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 +67%

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
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
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nrdc Action Fund Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

109 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. 109 of the 128 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.

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

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 NameMONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: $3,250,000 · OtherMONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTSARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS: $3,250,000 · OtherARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESSGreen Advocacy Project: $3,000,000 · OtherFF PAC: $2,700,000 · OtherPROJECT 218: $2,250,000 · OtherREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $2,000,000 · OtherWORKER POWER PAC: $2,000,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES: $2,000,000 · OtherNEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $2,000,000 · OtherPROGRESSIVE TURNOUT PROJECT: $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…CLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA: $1,000,000 · EnvironmentCLEAN AND PRO…SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $1,000,000 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN THIRT…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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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 budgetREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $2,000,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetNEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $2,000,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC: $2,000,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetOhioans United for Reproductive Rights: $1,500,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetACCELERATE CHANGE INC: $1,500,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $1,500,000 over 3y, 0.6% 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 budgetFLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM: $1,000,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $1,000,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetOne Person One Vote: $1,000,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA: $1,000,000 over 1y, 8.2% of budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $1,000,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetRED WINE & BLUE: $1,000,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD ALLIANCE ADVOCATES SERVING AK HI ID IN KY AND WA: $1,000,000 over 1y, 23% 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 budgetSolar United Neighbors Action: $315,000 over 2y, 56% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $315,000 over 1y, 5.2% 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.

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

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 Advocacy Action Fund Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Advocacy Action Fund Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 80%6%25%56%100%funder's 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
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 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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 128 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 Advocacy Action’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