Skip to content
America Votes at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

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.

$169M
Granted FY2025still arriving
119
Grants FY2025still arriving
20
States reached
$14M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Civil Rights$222MPublic Benefit$132MEmployment$41MEnvironment$40MHuman Services$34MCommunity Improvement$25MHealth$16MPhilanthropy$14MOther$0
02FY2025 · 119 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $135k
  • $50k–250k34 grants · $4.0M
  • $250k+78 grants · $164M
$500,000
Median grant
20
States reached
$22M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Campaign for a Family Friendly Economy$13,945,000
Black Progressive Action Coalition$12,250,000
MAP USA$10,220,000
BlackPAC$7,675,000
CFFE PAC$7,160,000
League of Conservation Voters Inc$6,290,000
For Our Future Action Fund$6,075,000
LCV Victory Fund$6,015,000
American Bridge Foundation$6,000,000
Future Now Action$5,000,000
UNITE HERE Action Fund$4,305,000
Media Matters for America$4,000,000
Somos Votantes$3,650,000
Global Impact Social Welfare Fund$3,610,000
Somos PAC$3,225,000
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 (FY20–25, $10.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 36% 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: $900k → 11%UNE: $25k → 10%CASA IN ACTION: $315k → 11%NEW MAINERS ALLIANCE: $15k → 13%North Carolina A Philip Randolph Educational Fund Inc: $2.1M → 8%UNE: $25k → 10%CASA IN ACTION: $149k → 11%NC APR EDUCATIONAL FUND INC: $1.1M → 8%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND: $500k → 14%CASA IN ACTION: $100k → 11%HMONG AMERICAN WOMEN'S ASSOC: $200k → 17%NC A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $1.0M → 8%CASA in Action: $75k → 11%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $450k → 11%NC A Philip Randolph EDUCATIONAL FUND: $765k → 8%NC A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $350k → 8%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $376k → 11%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND: $100k → 14%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $375k → 11%NC A Philip Randolph EDUCATIONAL FUND: $200k → 8%NCAAT in Action: $250k → 8%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $300k → 11%NC A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATION FUND: $200k → 8%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN AMERICA: $25k → 11%NC APR EDUCATIONAL FUND INC: $60k → 8%NORTH CAROLINA ASIANS TOGETHER IN ACTION: $50k → 8%NORTH CAROLINA ASIANS TOGETHER IN ACTION: $350k → 8%NC ASIANS TOGETHER IN ACTION: $219k → 8%NC ASIANS TOGETHER IN ACTION: $184k → 8%NC ASIANS TOGETHER IN ACTION: $50k → 8%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

ME
VT
NH
WA
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
SD
OH
PA
CA
UT
CO
NE
KY
VA
MD
AZ
NM
NC
DC
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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$423M · 152 repeat orgs$107M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +30% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

152 repeat relationships: 70 still active in FY2025, 82 since wound down; 45 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

152
134

Total granted

$423M
$64M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+30%
+8%

Still filing today

80%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $43M went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Civil RightsPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationHealthOther
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

  • BP
    BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION
    5× · 2020–2025 · $70M · revenue ×82 · 81% of their budget
  • FA
    FORWARD ACTION FUND
    6× · 2020–2025 · $46M · revenue +198% · 58% of their budget
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $22M · revenue +104%

Funded once

  • PN
    PROGRESS NOW EDUCATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $19M · revenue +103%
  • FO
    FOR OUR FUTURE
    one grant, 2021 · $8.2M
  • TB
    TAKE BACK 2020
    one grant, 2021 · $5.0M
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
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
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…

—
3
Power Coalition for Electoral Justice

We created the power coalition for electoral justice with our partners because this is a moment of opportunity; a time to dig in and become internationally strategic; in short, to use this movement to create a true paradigm shift. to plant…

Civil Rights
4
Missouri Jobs With Justice Voter Action

To develop and advocate for legislation, regulations, ballot initiatives, and government programs as a voice of the working class, to promote social justice, and to stimulate the economy; and, to conduct research, educate the public, and…

Civil Rights
5
League of Women Voters of New Jersey

Through grassroots people-powered advocacy and organizing, lwvnj trains, mobilizes, and educates advocates to have a greater voice in government and influence public policy.

—
6
People's Independent Commission

Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay

—
7
Organize for Justice

Organize for justice develops diverse campaign leadership by passing on innovations and relationships from one generation of organizers to the next. the organization strives to create public support on issues affecting working americans.

—
8
Progress Arizona

Progress arizona is an arizona nonprofit corporation located in phoenix, arizona. progress arizona is an organization founded in 2018 to educate the public about key policy issues using digital organizing and communications.

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
Accion Politica Pcunista Dba Pcun

To promote civic participation.

Arts & Culture
11
Fair Democracy

Fair democracy works to ensure that the roots of american democracy are healthy with strong voting rights and access, an engaged and informed electorate, an open and accountable government and trusted messengers engaging americans in civil…

Civil Rights
12
Issue One Action

Issue one action is uniting republicans, democrats, and independents to protect our elections and fix our political system. we are committed to free, fair, and secure elections and reducing the influence of well-financed special interests…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Organizing Empowerment Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Glpa-Lead. 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

253 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. 253 of the 336 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.

55
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
94
Early backer (in before they grew)
240/253
Grantees still filing
142/253
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION: $69,895,250 · OtherBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITIONFAMILY FRIENDLY ACTION PAC: $27,027,500 · OtherFAMILY FRIENDLY ACTION PACBLACKPAC: $23,453,200 · OtherBLACKPACPROGRESS NOW EDUCATION: $19,000,000 · OtherPROGRESS NOW EDUCATIONFOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUND: $18,695,926 · OtherFOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUNDMAP USA: $17,570,000 · OtherUNITE HERE ACTION FUND: $14,169,509 · OtherLCV VICTORY FUND: $12,615,000 · OtherSOMOS PAC: $11,371,000 · Other+103 more: $116,806,456 · Other+103 moreFORWARD ACTION FUND: $45,906,500 · Civil RightsFORWARD ACTION FUNDLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $22,140,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOT…BLACK MEN VOTE CIVIC ACTION FUND: $4,225,000 · Civil Rights+51 more: $52,263,390 · Civil Rights+51 moreFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $8,700,000 · Public BenefitAB FOUNDATION: $6,000,000 · Public BenefitFUTURE NOW ACTION: $5,000,000 · Public BenefitGlobal Impact Social Welfare Fund: $3,610,000 · Public BenefitCENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION: $3,470,000 · Public BenefitPROGRESS NORTH CAROLINA ACTION: $1,170,000 · Public BenefitProgress Michigan Inc: $1,151,000 · Public Benefit+5 more: $1,760,000 · Public BenefitWORKER POWER INSTITUTE: $3,750,000 · Community ImprovementHOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD: $3,000,000 · Community ImprovementWe Vote We Win: $1,400,000 · Community ImprovementAlliance for a Better Minnesota: $750,000 · Community ImprovementADVANCE NORTH CAROLINA INC: $480,000 · Community Improvement+6 more: $1,510,500 · Community ImprovementNORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $5,895,000 · Human ServicesLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $2,426,000 · Human ServicesNCAAT IN ACTION: $1,102,190 · Human ServicesCASA IN ACTION INC: $639,000 · Human ServicesGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $600,000 · Human Services+1 more: $200,000 · Human ServicesCLIMATE REALITY ACTION FUND: $7,416,450 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $1,000,000 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $505,000 · EnvironmentPLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND INC: $5,555,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD ADVOCATES OF WISCONSIN INC: $917,000 · Health
Other$330,603,841Civil Rights$124,534,890Public Benefit$30,861,000Community Improvement$10,890,500Human Services$10,862,190Environment$8,921,450Health$6,472,000

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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 budgetBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION: $69,895,250 over 5y, 81% of budgetFORWARD ACTION FUND: $45,906,500 over 6y, 58% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $22,140,000 over 6y, 8.2% of budgetFOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUND: $18,695,926 over 5y, 94% of budgetMAP USA: $17,570,000 over 3y, 21% of budgetUNITE HERE ACTION FUND: $14,169,509 over 5y, 66% of budgetFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $8,700,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetCLIMATE REALITY ACTION FUND: $7,416,450 over 4y, 54% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $5,895,000 over 6y, 55% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND INC: $5,555,000 over 3y, 9.3% of budgetAMERICA WORKS USA: $5,450,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetFUTURE NOW ACTION: $5,000,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetNEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUND: $4,450,000 over 4y, 26% of budgetNEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION: $4,415,000 over 4y, 13% of budgetBLACK MEN VOTE CIVIC ACTION FUND: $4,225,000 over 2y, 26% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $3,804,500 over 5y, 47% of budgetWORKER POWER INSTITUTE: $3,750,000 over 3y, 18% of budgetWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC: $3,670,000 over 5y, 2.1% of budgetGlobal Impact Social Welfare Fund: $3,610,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetCENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION: $3,470,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetTHE OHIO ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN: $2,530,000 over 3y, 9.3% of budgetLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $2,426,000 over 5y, 11% of budgetNEVADA ALLIANCE: $2,400,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetA BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC: $2,276,850 over 5y, 34% of budgetBLACK MALE VOTER PROJECT: $2,275,000 over 5y, 1.5% of budgetALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ACTION: $2,000,000 over 4y, 28% of budgetMI FAMILIA VOTA: $1,973,000 over 5y, 15% of budgetBATTLEGROUND NEW YORK ACTION INC: $1,800,000 over 2y, 19% of budgetOUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA: $1,786,000 over 3y, 60% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $1,773,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetEVERY ELIGIBLE AMERICAN: $1,750,000 over 2y, 12% of budgetPOWER TO THE POLLS INC: $1,675,000 over 2y, 35% of budgetPRIORITIES USA: $1,666,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetVOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC: $1,535,000 over 5y, 21% of budgetWORKING AMERICA: $1,473,500 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetWe Vote We Win: $1,400,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetWORKMONEY INC: $1,350,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetORGANIZE PENNSYLVANIA: $1,215,000 over 4y, 1.9% of budgetPennsylvania United: $1,190,000 over 4y, 26% of budgetPROGRESS NORTH CAROLINA ACTION: $1,170,000 over 3y, 78% of budgetProgress Michigan Inc: $1,151,000 over 4y, 17% of budgetTIOGA FUND INC: $1,150,000 over 1y, 61% of budgetBLACK MALE INITIATIVE FUND INC: $1,150,000 over 2y, 35% of budgetTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $1,142,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetNCAAT IN ACTION: $1,102,190 over 5y, 79% of budgetLEADERS IGNITING TRANSFORMATION ACTION FUND INC: $1,080,000 over 3y, 21% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD ADVOCATES OF MI: $1,051,000 over 4y, 39% of budgetCENTER FOR EMPOWERED POLITICS: $1,035,000 over 2y, 3.4% 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.

  • Who funds BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION ↗
  • Who funds FORWARD ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds PROGRESS NOW EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds FOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds MAP USA ↗
  • Who funds UNITE HERE ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION ↗
  • Who funds CLIMATE REALITY ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds AB FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND ↗
  • Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICA WORKS USA ↗
  • Who funds FUTURE NOW ACTION ↗
  • Who funds NEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds NEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION ↗
  • Who funds BLACK MEN VOTE CIVIC ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION ↗
  • Who funds WORKER POWER INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds WORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Global Impact Social Welfare Fund ↗
  • Who funds Pizza to the Polls ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION ↗
  • Who funds Ohio Progressive Collaborative ↗
  • Who funds FIGHT BIG PHARMA INC ↗
  • Who funds HOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD ↗
  • Who funds THE OHIO ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN ↗
  • Who funds LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA ↗
  • Who funds NEVADA ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds STOP POLITICAL CORRUPTION INC ↗

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 FundAll Hands on Deck Net…Tides AdvocacyWay to Win Action Fun…Open Society Action F…North FundWomen Donors Network …Pro-Democracy CampaignNEO Philanthropy Acti…State Engagement FundCenter for Community …Our American Future A…
Sixteen Thirty FundDC216.9× affinity159 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Advocacy · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · North Fund · Women Donors Network Action · Pro-Democracy Campaign · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · State Engagement Fund · Center for Community Change Action · Our American Future Action

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 110%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    11get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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.

    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 336 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 America Votes’ 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