Loading…
· Public charity
CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE
Increase civic participation by modernizing engagement between local government and the people they serve.
$13M
Granted FY2025
108
Grants
17
Communities
$3.7M
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 97% of CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2021
safe administrationadministration electionselections covidcovid pandemic
2022
—
2023
election administrationadministration equipmentequipment securesecure infrastructure
2024
election administrationadministration equipmentequipment securesecure infrastructure
2025
nonpartisan ruralrural nonmetrononmetro electionelection officesoffices conductconduct reliablereliable secure
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2025 · 108 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $23k
- $10k–50k76 grants · $1.6M
- $50k–250k25 grants · $1.8M
- $250k+4 grants · $8.8M
$20,000
Median grant
17
States reached
$86M
Total assets
Largest grants
- US DIGITAL RESPONSE$3,700,000
- INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT$3,300,000
- THE ELECTIONS GROUP$958,000
- CENTER FOR CIVIC DESIGN$800,000
- ROCK THE VOTE$200,000
- VOTEORG$200,000
- STUDIO DAVID JANKA$128,000
- PODER LATINX COLLECTIVE FUND$100,000
- THOMAS MAIORANAPROTOTYPING SYSTEMS LLC$100,000
- MI FAMILIA VOTA$100,000
- COLORADO COUNTY CLERKS ASSOCIATION$90,000
- JACKSON COUNTY CLERK ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT$50,000
- CHAVES COUNTY CLERK$50,000
- FRANKLIN COUNTY CLERK$50,000
- STEUBEN COUNTY FINANCE$50,000
02The need
04
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY21–21, $77k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
8%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$37M · 59 repeat orgs$427M to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +225% since the first grant, against +35% for the ones you funded once.
59 repeat relationships — 52 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 56 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
59
1885
Total granted
$37M
$421M
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+225%
+35%
Still filing today
3%
0%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.3M went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Civil RightsPublic BenefitHuman ServicesPublic Safety & DisasterCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentOther
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- DCDEKALB COUNTY GEORGIA2× · 2021–2023 · $12M
- UDUS DIGITAL RESPONSE3× · 2023–2025 · $8.1M · revenue -24% · 30% of their budget
- CCCLARK COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS3× · 2021–2024 · $5.4M
Funded once
- FCFULTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS -GA WARRANT ACCOUNTone grant, 2021 · $21M
- TBTHE BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORKone grant, 2021 · $19M
- DCDALLAS COUNTY ELECTIONSone grant, 2021 · $15M
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
1
Register America
Assist with voter registration & advocate for policies to increase u.s. voter registration.
—
2
National Popular Vote
To educate the public regarding its proposal to implement a Nationwide Popular Vote Election of the President of the United States
Public Benefit
3
The Center for Election Innovation & Research
CEIR seeks to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation while ensuring election integrity and security.
Civil Rights
4
Ipi Action Fund Inc
Advocate for and promote final five voting, a nonpartisan election innovation.
—
5
Voter Registration Project
Assist minority citizens who are eligible to register to vote/participate in the democratic process.
—
6
Verified Voting Foundation
Strengthen democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in elections.
—
7
Democracy Works Inc
Improving civic participation by simplifying and modernizing the voting process for voters and election administrators.
Civil Rights
8
Right Vote Inc
Civil Rights
9
Secure Election Project Inc
To preserve & protect the sanctity of our vote by promoting common sense, nonpartisan election security reforms that prevent hacking & fraud, without restricting eligible citizens from accessing the polls.
Public Benefit
10
Institute for Research on Presidential Elections
To educate the public regarding its proposal to implement a Nationwide Popular Vote Election of the President of the United States by providing objectively-determined information, data, analyses, and studies aimed at improving
Civil Rights
11
Voteamerica
Voteamerica uses technology to simplify political engagement and increase voter turnout.
Civil Rights
12
Electronic Registration Information Center Inc
ERIC is a membership organization consisting of state election officials working together to improve the accuracy of state voter registration lists and educate eligible citizens on how to register to vote.
Civil Rights
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rock the Vote and the most unlike its peers is New Venture Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
12 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$449,583,435Public Safety & Disaster$8,100,000Public Benefit$3,500,000Civil Rights$1,900,000Environment$1,109,226Community Improvement$90,000Human Services$76,501
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a loosely connected circle, clustered around a few shared anchors.
Institute for Responsive Government IncIL126.1× affinity139 shared granteesties to 5 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Institute for Responsive Government Inc · The Recycling Partnership Inc · American Kennel Club Companion · Palmettopride the Governor's · Amplify Inc · National Recreation and Park Association · Agespan Inc · Project Bread-The Walk for Hunger Inc · The Institute for Intergovernmental · Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund · Island Institute · National Network of Public Health
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organisation CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: US DIGITAL RESPONSE.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~8 months of operating runway; revenue contracted over 3 filed years.
Track record & reputation
medium risk
3 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 863759883 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on US DIGITAL RESPONSE, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 8 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 30% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Center for Technology and Civic Life?
Find your warmest path to Center for Technology and Civic Life through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines