Skip to content
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation

BALLOT INITIATIVE STRATEGY CENTER FOUNDATION (bisc foundation) strengthens democracy by conducting research to better understand public attitudes toward issues and the role ballot measures play in our democracy.

$120k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2018 to 2024.

Philanthropy$250kPublic Benefit$230kCivil Rights$70kCrime & Legal$50kEmployment$10k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$100,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$6.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT COLLABORATIVE$100,000
MAINE VOICES NETWORK$20,000
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 (FY22–22, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA (LUCHA): $50k → 11%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
OH
CA
NE
MO
AZ
NC
MS
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 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
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
2
Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Action

Advocating for legislation, regulations, ballot initiatives, and government programs as a voice of average missouri citizens, to promote social justice, and to stimulate the economy, and conducting research, educating the public, and…

Civil Rights
3
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.

—
4
Minnesota Voice

Minnesota Voice is a collaboration of organizations working toward permanent change in social, racial, and economic justice by increasing civic engagement and voter participation across the state.

Public Benefit
5
Voteamerica

The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.

Civil Rights
6
Wyoming Civic Engagement Network

The wyoming civic engagement network strives for equitable voter participation by building power in marginalized and under-resourced communities, growing the capacity of their leaders and organizations, facilitating equitable access to…

Civil Rights
7
Civic Tn

Civictn and its partners are working individually and collectively to create a more accessible, inclusive, and representative democracy by lifting up the voices of the disenfranchised, restoring the power and accessibility of the vote, and…

Civil Rights
8
New Jersey Citizen Action

To protect and expand the rights of citizens of the state of new jersey, and encourage active citizen involvement in campaigns promoting economic, social and racial equity.

—
9
American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware Inc

The organization monitors legislation that could impact civil liberties and takes the necessary action to support or oppose such legislation.

—
10
Kentucky Coalition Inc

To support grassroots organizing, leadership development & public education around important public policy. ky coalition seeks to promote active citizen participation in the democratic process.

Public Benefit
11
Alabama Values

A nonpartisan grassroots communication organization that works to raise awareness and increase engagement around community issues in alabama by working directly with civic organizations advocating civic participation in communities across…

Arts & Culture
12
Southern Coalition for Social Justice

Southern coalition for social justice partners with communities of color and economically disadvantaged communities across the south to defend and advance their political, social, and economic rights. through an intersectional and…

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest; the most unlike its peers is Ohio Voice. 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

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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
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

TIDES FOUNDATION: $250,000 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUNDATIONMISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT COLLABORATIVE: $150,000 · Civil RightsMISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER…MISSISSIPPI VOTES: $10,000 · Civil RightsMISSISSIPPI VOTESFLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT INC: $50,000 · Public BenefitFLORIDA ALL…OHIO VOICE: $10,000 · Public BenefitOHIO VOICENEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: $50,000 · Crime & LegalNEBRASKA …LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $50,000 · Human ServicesLIVING UN…MAINE PEOPLE'S RESOURCE CENTER: $20,000 · OtherBLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA: $10,000 · EducationMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $10,000 · Employment
Philanthropy$250,000Civil Rights$160,000Public Benefit$60,000Crime & Legal$50,000Human Services$50,000Other$20,000Education$10,000Employment$10,000

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 budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $250,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT COLLABORATIVE: $150,000 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetFLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT INC: $50,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetNEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: $50,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $50,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMAINE PEOPLE'S RESOURCE CENTER: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMISSISSIPPI VOTES: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetOHIO VOICE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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 FoundationAmalgamated Charitabl…New Venture FundDemos a Network for I…Proteus Fund IncCommon Counsel Founda…Hopewell FundNEO Philanthropy IncNational Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Tides FoundationCA20.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund · Demos a Network for Ideas and Action Ltd · Proteus Fund Inc · Common Counsel Foundation · Hopewell Fund · NEO Philanthropy Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%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 · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 10 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 Ballot Initiative Strategy Center’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