· Public charity
Economic Security Project Action Inc
Economic security project action advocates for ideas that build economic power for all americans.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $135k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $355k
- $250k+1 grant · $482k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ECONOMIC SECURITY PROJECT INC | $482,279 |
| THE NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION | $90,000 |
| P STREET PROJECT | $80,000 |
| FREEDOM VIRGINIA INC | $70,000 |
| MECEP ACTION | $65,000 |
| THE WASHINGTON STATE BUDGET & POLICY CENTER | $50,000 |
| PENNSYLVANIA POLICY CENTER | $45,000 |
| NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE INC | $25,000 |
| MOMSRISING TOGETHER | $25,000 |
| CASH CAMPAIGN OF MARYLAND | $25,000 |
| OREGON CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY | $15,000 |
| MASSACHUSETTS BUDGET & POLICY CENTER INC | $7,700 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY21–24, $170k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 21% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +0% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 26% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $727k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- PSP STREET PROJECT3× · 2022–2024 · $135k · revenue +75%
- NYNEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION INC2× · 2023–2024 · $120k · revenue +130%
- TWTHE WASHINGTON STATE BUDGET AND POLICY CENTER3× · 2019–2024 · $68k · revenue +34%
Funded once
- IFINITIATIVE FOR MEDICINES ACCESS & KNOWLEDGE (I-MAK) INCone grant, 2021 · $225k · revenue -28%
- IFINSTITUTE FOR LOCAL SELF RELIANCEgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $225k · revenue +51%
- PPREP4ALLone grant, 2021 · $100k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
Powerswitch action is a national network forging collective democracy and economies in our cities and states, together with our 21 grassroots affiliates.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.
To drive principled solutions through rigorous analysis, reasoned negotiation, and respectful dialogue. to actively promote bipartisanship and work to address the key challenges facing the nation including energy and infrastructure,…
Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay
The mission of the d.c. policy center is to arm decision makers with fact-based, unbiased, and reliable research and analyses to help create a vibrant local economy that can maximize opportunities for residents, workers, and businesses in…
Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…
We are workers, united across different industries to improve our working conditions and our lives. We come together as working people to build power through education, organizing, and enforcement. We work to raise and uphold standards in…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
To promote macroeconomic policies that ensure the sustained advancement of labor market outcomes for all american workers, i.e. tight labor markets, higher wages and better quality employment.
See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink and the most unlike its peers is Solid Ground Washington. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 18 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 10% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
52 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 52 of the 56 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds ECONOMIC SECURITY PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds FIGHT CORPORATE MONOPOLIES ↗
- Who funds INITIATIVE FOR MEDICINES ACCESS & KNOWLEDGE (I-MAK) INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL SELF RELIANCE ↗
- Who funds United for Respect ↗
- Who funds THE TECH OVERSIGHT PROJECT ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE INC ↗
- Who funds P STREET PROJECT ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds United for Respect Education Fund ↗
- Who funds FARM ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds POLICYLINK ↗
- Who funds Action Center on Race and the Economy ↗
- Who funds SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds SUNRISE MOVEMENT ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL SECURITY WORKS ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY ACTION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE'S ACTION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE EARTH ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL YOUNG FARMERS COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM VIRGINIA INC ↗
- Who funds THE WASHINGTON STATE BUDGET AND POLICY CENTER ↗
- Who funds MECEP ACTION ↗
- Who funds MAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Fuse Washington ↗
- Who funds PENNSYLVANIA POLICY CENTER ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC CITIZEN INC ↗
- Who funds CASH CAMPAIGN OF MARYLAND INC ↗
- Who funds Action Center on Race & the Economy Institute ↗
- Who funds ParentsTogether Action ↗
- Who funds New Jersey Policy Perspective ↗
- Who funds Our Revolution ↗
- Who funds SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES FIRST ↗
- Who funds MOMSRISING TOGETHER ↗
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Hopewell Fund · Tides Foundation · Economic Security Project Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Center on Budget and Policy Priorities · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Tides Advocacy · Communications Workers of America Afl-Cio Clc · Center for Community Change Action · Annie E Casey Foundation Inc
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 organization Economic Security Project Action Inc 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Boston Medical Center Corporation — 23% of income from government
- Cash Campaign of Maryland Inc — 11% of income from government
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 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Economic Security Project Action Inc?
Find your warmest path to Economic Security Project Action Inc 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.