Skip to content

· Public charity

Black Progressive Action Coalition

The BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION (bpac) is an independent, progressive coalition of individuals and organizations committed to empowering black communities through civic engagement and education, community mobilization, and campaigns that turn our issues into policies, grounded in justice and equality, that change peoples lives.

$4.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$2.4M
Largest
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.

Public Benefit$8.5MHousing & Shelter$500kCivil Rights$350k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
  • $250k+3 grants · $4.6M
$1,938,782
Median grant
2
States reached
$6.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BLACK PROG ACTION COAL EDUC FUND$2,391,950
OHIO BLACK CIVIC ENGAGEMENT COALITION$1,938,782
VOTE TO LIVE ACTION FUND$250,000
WE VOTE WE WIN INC$100,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%VOTE TO LIVE ACTION FUND: $250k → 14%WE VOTE WE WIN INC: $100k → 13%NEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUND: $3.6M → 14%PRIORITIES USA ACTION: $500k → 14%BLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND: $100k → 13%BLACK PROG ACTION COAL EDUC FUND: $2.4M → 14%THE FAIRNESS PROJECT: $500k → 14%OHIO BLACK CIVIC ENGAGEMENT COALITION: $1.9M → 14%AMERICA VOTES ACTION FUND: $10k → 14%AMERICA VOTES ACTION FUND: $8k → 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.
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
America Votes Education Fund

America Votes Education Fund is dedicated to expanding all voters' access to the ballot through a grantmaking program.

Civil Rights
2
All Americans Vote

All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!

Civil Rights
3
Civica Initiatives

Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions

Community Improvement
4
Detroit Unity Fund

Aggressively concentrating on giving Black Americans a fundamental base that will help electrify them to vote through our community organizing, voter registration drives, canvassing voters and mobilization.

Community Improvement
5
Black Men Vote Civic Action Fund

Voter engagement

Civil Rights
6
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.

—
7
Black Men Vote

Black men vote's sole mission is to meet black men where they are with vital social programs that focus on issues that affect underserved communities of color. black men vote has the unique ability to bridge the cultural divide with…

Civil Rights
8
Black Male Voter Project Ef Inc

To engage Black men and encouage them to participate in their civic duties, with the aim of helping them become full citizens.

Civil Rights
9
Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote

It is the mission of APIAVote to encourage and promote civic participation of Asian Pacific Islander Americans in the electoral and public processes at the national, state, and local levels. APIAVote also aims to educate and inform Asian…

Civil Rights
10
Black in Action Collective

Black in Action Collective exists to build Black political power to transform systems and radically reimagine what is possible for ourselves, our families, and our communities

Civil Rights
11
Promise of Democracy Foundation Inc

The Promise of Democracy Foundation's (PDF) mission is to improve the quality of life in African American and underserved communities, by promoting democratic values, voting rights and electoral participation, through non-partisan voter…

Public Benefit
12
Virginia New Majority Education Fund

New Virginia Majority Education Fund is a grassroots organization that engages low income people and people of color in local communities through leadership development, trainings and workshops, issue education through grassroots…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Vote to Live Action Fund; the most unlike its peers is America Votes. 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

8 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. 8 of the 10 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUND: $3,600,000 · OtherNEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUNDBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION EDUCATION FUND: $2,391,950 · OtherBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION EDUCATION FUNDOHIO BLACK CIVIC ENGAGEMENT COALITION: $1,938,782 · OtherOHIO BLACK CIVIC ENGAGEMENT COALITIONPRIORITIES USA ACTION: $500,000 · OtherPRIORITIES USA ACTION+3 more: $358,000 · OtherTHE FAIRNESS PROJECT: $500,000 · Housing & ShelterWe Vote We Win: $100,000 · Community ImprovementAmerica Votes: $10,000 · Community Improvement
Other$8,788,732Housing & Shelter$500,000Community Improvement$110,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUND: $3,600,000 over 1y, 97% of budgetBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION EDUCATION FUND: $2,391,950 over 1y, 32% of budgetOHIO BLACK CIVIC ENGAGEMENT COALITION: $1,938,782 over 1y, 100% of budgetTHE FAIRNESS PROJECT: $500,000 over 1y, 9.4% of budgetVOTE TO LIVE ACTION FUND: $250,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetBlack Voters Matter Fund Inc: $100,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetAmerica Votes: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

America VotesDC15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: America Votes · Sixteen Thirty 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 Black Progressive Action Coalition funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Black Progressive Action Coalition. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Black Progressive Action Coalition?

    Find your warmest path to Black Progressive Action Coalition 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 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Black Progressive Action Coalition’s filings →

    More from the funding graph