Skip to content
Committee on States at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Committee on States

COMMITTEE ON STATES' mission is to create, nurture, & sustain a community of state-based progressive investors and institutional partners throughout the country.

$5.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
24
Grants FY2024still arriving
24
States reached
$1.3M
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 2024.

Public Benefit$5.4MCommunity Improvement$1.1MHealth$940kCivil Rights$430kHuman Services$280kArts & Culture$120kEnvironment$70kYouth Development$35k
02FY2024 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k20 grants · $2.0M
  • $250k+4 grants · $3.5M
$115,000
Median grant
24
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PA ALLIANCE ACTION$1,325,000
MICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUND$940,000
TOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS$940,000
GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND INC$265,000
NEVADA ALLIANCE$215,000
OHIO PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE$215,000
FLORIDA ADVANCEMENT PROJECT$200,000
WIN MINNESOTA$165,000
PROJECT NM LLC$140,000
MAKE NC FIRST$140,000
TENNESSEE INVESTOR FUND$115,000
COLORADO DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE$115,000
WASHINGTON PROGRESS ALLIANCE$115,000
IDAHO PROGRESSIVE INVESTOR NETWORK$100,000
OREGON DONOR ALLIANCE$60,000
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 (FY20–24, $465k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, 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%INSTITUTO LAB: $50k → 11%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND INC: $265k → 14%INSTITUTO LAB: $10k → 11%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND: $75k → 14%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND: $50k → 14%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND: $15k → 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

AK
ME
NH
WA
ID
MT
MN
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
IN
OH
PA
CA
UT
CO
MO
KY
VA
AZ
NM
TN
NC
AL
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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.4M · 23 repeat orgs$950k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +127% since the first grant, against +4% for those funded once.

23 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
10

Total granted

$7.4M
$460k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+127%
+4%

Still filing today

74%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $490k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • PA
    PA ALLIANCE ACTION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +388%
  • TW
    TOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INC
    2× · 2020–2024 · $990k · revenue +511%
  • MC
    MICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUND
    2× · 2023–2024 · $990k · revenue +442%

Funded once

  • P6
    Project 68 Inc
    one grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue -55%
  • FA
    FLORIDA ALLIANCE
    one grant, 2021 · $50k
  • WD
    WYOMING DONOR ALLIANCE
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +13%
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
Maine Donor Alliance Fund

To build a permanent and powerful progressive movement in Maine. We will promote a healthy, just, equitable democracy through research, engagement, and education of Maine's citizens. We will engage in democracy expansion, voter engagement,…

Education
2
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
3
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…

—
4
Upstate Action Alliance

Non-PartisanVoter Educ Advocacy

Civil Rights
5
Team Democracy Action

Team Democracy Action (TDA) promotes social welfare by bringing together Americans of all political perspectives around our shared commitment to the core principles of our constitutional democracy.

—
6
Arizona Prosperity Alliance

The organization engaged in public policy advocacy, survey work, and voter education, and in the past has also provided grants to non-profit organizations with complementary missions.

—
7
Maine Donor Alliance

To build a permanent and powerful social change movement in Maine, supported by a network of committed donors.

Civil Rights
8
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
9
Alliance for a Better Minnesota

We specialize in using digital and social media, media relations, and original content like videos, graphics, and blogs to increase support for progressive ideals. Together, we can build a Minnesota that works for everyone.

Community Improvement
10
The Partnership Project Action Fund

The Partnership Project Action Fund helps the environmental community work more collaboratively to advocate for the protection of the natural environment.

Environment
11
Four for Montana Action Fund

To promote social welfare including, but not limited to, advocating for electoral reforms that give montanans more choice in candidates for elections.

—
12
Keystone Democracy

Keystone Democracy's goal is to ensure that all Pennsylvania elections are implemented in a safe, secure, convenient and fair manner. We work to advance pro-democracy policies by informing elected officials, civic leaders, the media, and…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Indiana Progressive Collaborative Inc; the most unlike its peers is Instituto Lab. 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

29 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. 29 of the 39 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
12
Early backer (in before they grew)
29/29
Grantees still filing
17/29
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PA ALLIANCE ACTION: $1,375,000 · Civil RightsPA ALLIANCE ACTIONMICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUND: $990,000 · Civil RightsMICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUNDINDIANA PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE INC: $248,750 · Civil RightsINDIANA PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE INCCOMMONWEALTH ALLIANCE VOTER ENGAGEMENT: $135,000 · Civil RightsCOLORADO DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE: $115,000 · Civil Rights+6 more: $415,000 · Civil Rights+6 moreFLORIDA ADVANCEMENT PROJECT INC: $325,000 · OtherFLORIDA ADVANCEMENT PROJECT INCPROJECT NM LLC: $310,000 · OtherPROJECT NM LLCTEXAS FUTURE COOPERATIVE: $275,000 · OtherTEXAS FUTURE COOPERATIVEOhio Progressive Collaborative: $265,000 · OtherOhio Progressive CollaborativeNEVADA ALLIANCE: $265,000 · OtherNEVADA ALLIANCEVIRGINIA PLUS LLC: $250,000 · OtherVIRGINIA PLUS LLCMake North Carolina First: $240,000 · OtherMake North Carolina FirstIDAHO PROGRESSIVE INVESTOR NETWORK: $220,000 · OtherIDAHO PROGRESSIVE INVESTOR NETWORK+9 more: $445,000 · Other+9 moreTOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INC: $990,000 · HealthTOGETHER WISC…Washington Progress Alliance: $240,000 · Community ImprovementA BETTER BIG SKY: $150,000 · Community ImprovementAlaska Progressive Donor Table: $100,000 · Community ImprovementMISSOURI WIN: $50,000 · Community ImprovementTENNESSEE INVESTOR FUND: $240,000 · Public BenefitWIN MINNESOTA: $165,000 · Public BenefitWYOMING DONOR ALLIANCE: $50,000 · Public BenefitCOMMONWEALTH ALLIANCE ACTION FUND: $50,000 · Public BenefitGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $405,000 · Human ServicesInstituto Lab: $60,000 · Human Services
Civil Rights$3,278,750Other$2,595,000Health$990,000Community Improvement$540,000Public Benefit$505,000Human Services$465,000

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 budgetPA ALLIANCE ACTION: $1,375,000 over 2y, 7.5% of budgetTOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INC: $990,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetMICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUND: $990,000 over 2y, 6.5% of budgetGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $405,000 over 4y, 3.3% of budgetFLORIDA ADVANCEMENT PROJECT INC: $325,000 over 3y, 4.7% of budgetOhio Progressive Collaborative: $265,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetNEVADA ALLIANCE: $265,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetINDIANA PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE INC: $248,750 over 4y, 84% of budgetMake North Carolina First: $240,000 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetTENNESSEE INVESTOR FUND: $240,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetWashington Progress Alliance: $240,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetWIN MINNESOTA: $165,000 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetA BETTER BIG SKY: $150,000 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetCOMMONWEALTH ALLIANCE VOTER ENGAGEMENT: $135,000 over 3y, 11% of budgetCOLORADO DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE: $115,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetNEW HAMPSHIRE PROGRESS ALLIANCE: $100,000 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetProject 68 Inc: $100,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetAlaska Progressive Donor Table: $100,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc: $85,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetOREGON DONOR ALLIANCE: $60,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetInstituto Lab: $60,000 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetMISSOURI WIN: $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWYOMING DONOR ALLIANCE: $50,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetCOMMONWEALTH ALLIANCE ACTION FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetALLIANCE FOR A BETTER NORTH DAKOTA: $50,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetSEE FORWARD FUND INC: $35,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetAlliance for a Better Utah Inc: $35,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetTHE ALABAMA ALLIANCE: $35,000 over 1y, 24% 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.

State Engagement FundState Leadership Proj…Sixteen Thirty FundAll Hands on Deck Net…Tides AdvocacyStrategic Victory FundTides FoundationNorth FundAmerican Federation o…America VotesOpen Society Action F…Fuse Washington
State Engagement FundNC55.6× affinity24 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: State Engagement Fund · State Leadership Project · Sixteen Thirty Fund · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Advocacy · Strategic Victory Fund · Tides Foundation · North Fund · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees · America Votes · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Fuse Washington

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 40%6%23%51%90%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
    4get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 39 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 Committee on States’ 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