Skip to content
Every Eligible American at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Every Eligible American

The organizations primary mission is to support policies that strengthen participation in democracy, educate the public on the crucial role of secretaries of state in protecting voting rights, and shine a light on those working to roll back election access.

$715k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$500k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Public Benefit$12MCivil Rights$3.5M
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $200k
  • $250k+1 grant · $500k
$150,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$344
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OHIO PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE$500,000
ONE PERSON ONE VOTE$150,000
EVERY ELIGIBLE NEVADAN$50,000
AMERICA VOTES$15,000
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 (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 90% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%WAY TO WIN ACTION FUND: $1.0M → 14%SAFE ACCESSIBLE FAIR ELECTIONS: $8.2M → 14%OHIO PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE: $500k → 15%INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIVE GOVT ACTION: $975k → 14%BATTLE BORN PROGRESS: $25k → 13%FAMILY FRIENDLY ACTION FUND: $1.5M → 7%VALUE THE VOTE: $2.0M → 14%ONE PERSON ONE VOTE: $450k → 15%NEVADA ALLIANCE: $50k → 13%END CITIZENS UNITED: $350k → 14%ONE PERSON ONE VOTE: $150k → 15%EVERY ELIGIBLE NEVADAN: $50k → 14%NORTH FUND: $50k → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $15k → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $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.
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
Protect Colorados Vote

To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact

—
2
Texas Justice Fund

To support legal, political & administrative efforts to protect fair voting.

—
3
Yes On National Popular Vote

Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote

—
4
Right Vote Inc
Civil Rights
5
Election Reformers Network Inc

To strengthen democracy in the United States through an assessment of US voting systems and US election administration from the perspective of global best practices.

Civil Rights
6
Democracy for America Advocacy Fund

Democracy for America Advocacy Fund (DFA-AF) is a 501(c)(4) organization that advocates for fair, just, inclusive, and equitable public policies that benefit all, not just a few. DFA-AF was launched to take on structural democracy reform…

—
7
Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—
8
League of Women Voters of Ohio

The league of women voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and…

—
9
Upstate Action Alliance

Non-PartisanVoter Educ Advocacy

Civil Rights
10
Election Watch Inc

Research analyze publish information to public on elections election systems laws and campaign financing.

Civil Rights
11
Ballot Pa Action

Informed and educated the public and lawmakers about the benefits of including independent voters in Pennsylvania's primary elections.

Civil Rights
12
Send the Vote Inc

Conduct digital, direct mail and other public communication campaigns to support voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Value the Vote; the most unlike its peers is One Person One Vote. 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

11 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. 11 of the 13 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SAFE ACCESSIBLE FAIR ELECTIONS: $8,182,204 · OtherSAFE ACCESSIBLE FAIR ELECTIONSOne Person One Vote: $600,000 · OtherOne Person One VoteOhio Progressive Collaborative: $500,000 · Other+2 more: $100,000 · OtherVALUE THE VOTE: $2,000,000 · Civil RightsVALUE THE VOTEFORWARD ACTION FUND: $1,500,000 · Civil RightsFORWARD ACTION FUNDWAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC: $1,000,000 · Civil RightsWAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INCRESPONSIVE GOV ACTION INC: $975,000 · Civil RightsRESPONSIVE GOV ACTION INCEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUND: $350,000 · Civil RightsEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION…America Votes: $30,000 · Community ImprovementBATTLE BORN PROGRESS: $25,040 · Community ImprovementNORTH FUND: $50,000 · Public Benefit
Other$9,382,204Civil Rights$5,825,000Community Improvement$55,040Public Benefit$50,000

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 budgetFORWARD ACTION FUND: $1,500,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetWAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC: $1,000,000 over 1y, 5.6% of budgetRESPONSIVE GOV ACTION INC: $975,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetOne Person One Vote: $600,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetOhio Progressive Collaborative: $500,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUND: $350,000 over 1y, 50% of budgetNEVADA ALLIANCE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNORTH FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmerica Votes: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBATTLE BORN PROGRESS: $25,040 over 1y, 2.8% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundHopewell FundWay to Win Action Fun…Open Society Action F…Tides FoundationTides AdvocacyGrove Action FundGlobal Impact Social …Advocacy Action Fund …The Heising-Simons Ac…Strategic Victory FundWomen Donors Network …
Sixteen Thirty FundDC21.7× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Hopewell Fund · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Tides Foundation · Tides Advocacy · Grove Action Fund · Global Impact Social Welfare Fund · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · The Heising-Simons Action Fund · Strategic Victory Fund · Women Donors Network Action

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 Every Eligible American funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Every Eligible American. 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 Every Eligible American?

    Find your warmest path to Every Eligible American 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 13 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $103k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Every Eligible American’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