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

· Public charity

Americans for Prosperity

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY exists to educate and mobilize americans to advocate for solutions that expand freedom and opportunity, with a focus on addressing unsustainable government spending and debt, reforming the health care, immigration, and criminal justice systems, protecting civil liberties, and building an economy where everyone…

$826k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
7
States reached
$250k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Public Benefit$725kCivil Rights$617kCommunity Improvement$448kEmployment$353kHealth$200kCrime & Legal$110kEducation$100kFood & Nutrition$50kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $43k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $533k
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$50,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$61M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Mackinac Center Action$250,000
National Immigration Forum$150,000
Jersey First$108,000
Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty$75,000
Manufacturer and Business Association$50,000
Ohio Works Inc$50,000
ShowMe Prosperity$50,000
WMC Foundation Inc$50,000
American Oil & Gas Alliance dba AOGA Inc$25,000
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Inc$17,500
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 (FY21–23, $457k) 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%America Is Better: $261k → 14%AMERICA IS BETTER: $160k → 14%AMERICA IS BETTER: $36k → 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

ND
MN
WI
MI
OR
SD
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CO
MO
WV
VA
AZ
KS
SC
DC
OK
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.

50%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 6 repeat orgs$1.4M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +15% since the first grant, against +9% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
20

Total granted

$1.3M
$984k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+15%
+9%

Still filing today

83%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $375k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsYouth DevelopmentEmploymentHuman ServicesCrime & LegalPublic BenefitOther
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

  • J1
    Jersey 1st
    4× · 2021–2024 · $185k · revenue +122% · 51% of their budget
  • MB
    MANUFACTURER & BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $68k · revenue +15%
  • WM
    WISCONSIN MANUFACTURERS AND COMMERCE INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $35k · revenue +6%

Funded once

  • VN
    VOTE NO ON 802 ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2020 · $200k · 95% of their budget
  • AF
    ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUBgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $110k · revenue +229%
  • EI
    EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION NATIONAL INC
    one grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue +10%
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
Michigan Chamber of Commerce

To promote conditions favorable to job creation and business success in michigan.

—
2
Enterprise Washington

See schedule o.enterprise washington empowers its members to effectively engage in public affairs and the political process. enterprise washington provides its business and association members with leading-edge research and strategies to…

Community Improvement
3
Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc

The State Chamber is a statewide membership organization. Our purpose is to be the unified voice of business and the most effective advocacy organization at the State Capitol.

—
4
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Industry

The minnesota chamber of commerce proactively leads the business community statewide to: advance pro-business, responsible minnesota public policy that creates jobs and grows the econony; provde member services to address evolving business…

—
5
Montana Chamber of Commerce

To create and sustain an optimal business climate, business prosperity and a strong montana economy through advocacy, education and collaboration, working to provide an empowered and educated workforce, reduce business growth obstacles,…

—
6
Iowa Association of Business and Industry

To nurture a favorable business, economic, governmental, and social climate within the state of iowa so our citizens can have the opportunity to enjoy the highest possible quality of life.

—
7
Association of Washington Business

Awb is the catalytic leader and unifying voice for economic prosperity, enabling our members, their employees and all citizens to prosper throughout washington state.

—
8
Illinois Manufacturers' Association

To strengthen the economic social environmental and governmental conditions for manufacturing and allied enterprises in the state of illinois, resulting in an englarged business base and increased employment.

—
9
American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce

The American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce has emerged as a firewall against government overreach and a beacon for common sense. We advocate for policies that will extend rather than extinguish the American experiment and ensure that…

Community Improvement
10
Connecticut Business and Industry Association Inc

CBIA is the voice of business in Connecticut, with thousands of member companies championing change at the State Capitol, shaping debate about economic competitiveness and fighting for a better future for all.

—
11
Ohio Chamber of Commerce

As the state's leading business advocate and resource, the ohio chamber of commerce aggressively champions free enterprise, economic competitiveness and growth for the benefit of all ohioans.

—
12
Public Policy Forum Inc Researching Community Issues

We seek, discover, and disclose true and accurate information to enhance the effectiveness of government and public policy in southeastern Wisconsin; and we facilitate public policy discussion and action.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Manufacturer & Business Association; the most unlike its peers is Vote No On 802 Association. 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

26 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. 26 of the 31 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/26
Grantees still filing
17/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VOTE NO ON 802 ASSOCIATION: $200,000 · OtherVOTE NO ON 802 ASSOCIATIONJersey 1st: $184,500 · OtherJersey 1stNATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM: $150,000 · OtherNATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUMGREATER NORTH DAKOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $90,000 · OtherGREATER NORTH DAKOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCEMANUFACTURER & BUSINESS ASSOCIATION: $67,500 · OtherMANUFACTURER & BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONGROWING INDIANA TOGETHER INC: $50,000 · OtherWMC FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · OtherOhio Works: $50,000 · OtherShowMe Prosperity: $50,000 · OtherAMERICAN OIL & GAS ALLIANCE: $42,500 · Other+11 more: $205,500 · Other+11 moreMACKINAC CENTER ACTION: $550,000 · Civil RightsMACKINAC CENTER ACTIONJEFFERSONIAN PROJECT: $75,000 · Civil RightsJEFFERSONIAN PROJECTIndependent Women's Forum: $50,000 · Civil RightsIndependent Women's ForumNATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM ACTION FUND: $456,869 · Human ServicesNATIONAL IMMIGRATIO…EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION NATIONAL INC: $100,000 · Youth DevelopmentCenter of the American Experiment: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentCenter for Worker Progress Action Inc: $100,000 · EmploymentCenter for Independent Employees: $18,000 · EmploymentARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB: $110,000 · Public BenefitWISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY: $75,000 · Crime & Legal
Other$1,140,000Civil Rights$675,000Human Services$456,869Youth Development$120,000Employment$118,000Public Benefit$110,000Crime & Legal$75,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMACKINAC CENTER ACTION: $550,000 over 2y, 47% of budgetNATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM ACTION FUND: $456,869 over 3y, 42% of budgetVOTE NO ON 802 ASSOCIATION: $200,000 over 1y, 95% of budgetJersey 1st: $184,500 over 4y, 51% of budgetNATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM: $150,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetEXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION NATIONAL INC: $100,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetGREATER NORTH DAKOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $90,000 over 1y, 9.0% of budgetWISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY: $75,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetJEFFERSONIAN PROJECT: $75,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetMANUFACTURER & BUSINESS ASSOCIATION: $67,500 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetWMC FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetIndependent Women's Forum: $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetOhio Works: $50,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetWISCONSIN MANUFACTURERS AND COMMERCE INC: $35,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetASSOCIATED BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS INC: $25,500 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetSOUTH DAKOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY: $25,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetCenter of the American Experiment: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCenter for Independent Employees: $18,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION: $15,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetYoung Voices: $15,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetOREGON BUSINESS & INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCOASTAL VIRGINIA CHAMBER OF COMMERC: $10,000 over 1y, 55% of budgetVIRGINIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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.

The Lynde and Harry B…State Policy NetworkNatl Christian Charit…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation IncWI15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc · State Policy Network · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Americans for Prosperity funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Americans for Prosperity. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get 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.

    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 31 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 Americans for Prosperity’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