How much did FAIRVOTE grant in FY2024?

FAIRVOTE reported 2 grants totaling $35,000 in its FY2024 IRS filing.

FAIRVOTE

Foundation Dossiers Mostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →

· Public charity

FAIRVOTE

FAIRVOTE is a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections for all.

$35k

Granted FY2024

Grants

Communities

$20k

Largest

01What you fund

0183% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.

Civil Rights$344kEducation$220kHuman Services$207kPublic Benefit$159kEnvironment$40kCommunity Improvement$8kOther$207k

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

2018

voter activities

2019

—

2020

presidential primariesvoter educationadvocacy

2021

advocacy education

2022

outreach education

2023

education rankedranked choiceoutreach education

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$20,000

Median grant

States reached

$6.1M

Total assets

Largest grants

RANK MI VOTE$20,000
BUILDING POWER FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR$15,000

02The need

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 (FY19–20, $168k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9% — 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.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$709k · 6 repeat orgs$475k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$709k

$440k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-12%

+201%

Still filing today

100%

78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Public BenefitCivil RightsEnvironmentEducationHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther

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

FW
FAIRVOTE WASHINGTON
2× · 2019–2020 · $168k · revenue -37% · 57% of their budget
MC
MAINE CITIZENS FOR CLEAN ELECTIONS
3× · 2017–2022 · $153k · revenue -25%
RT
RANK THE VOTE
2× · 2022–2023 · $150k · revenue +1125%

Funded once

UA
UNITE AMERICA INSTITUTEgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +4934%
CR
CALIFORNIA RCV INSTITUTE INCgraduated
one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +83% · 27% of their budget
R
REPRESENTWOMENgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +352%

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.

Equal Vote Coalition

The Equal Vote Coalitions mission is to promote true equality in the vote We conduct and support top-notch research educate communities and build coalitions Our five core principles for electoral reform mandate that proposals we support…

Civil Rights

Fairvote Minnesota Foundation

Provide education, outreach, research and advocacy to build knowledge and awareness about voting methods in public elections and how they may be improved.

Public Benefit

Fairvote Washington Foundation

FairVote Washington Foundation is organized as a non-profit corporation exclusively for conducting research and educating the public on issues related to ranked choice voting, voting methods, and electoral reform and advocating on behalf…

Human Services

Montanans for Election Reform

(1) advocating for electoral reforms that give montana voters more choice in candidates for federal, state, and local primary and general elections and, (2) opposing any legislative or constitutional changes that make it more difficult for…

—

Center for National Independence in

Vote smart is a nonpartisan research group that collects, keeps and makes available the factual records on public officials and issues.

—

Coalition for Dc Representation in

Founded in 1998, dc vote is a national citizen engagement and advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening democracy and securing equality for all in the district of columbia.

Education

Right Vote Inc

Civil Rights

Fairvote

Fairvote is a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections for all. we research and advance voting reforms that make democracy more functional and representative for each american.

Civil Rights

Alaskans for Better Elections

Alaskans for Better Elections ABE was formed to advocate and campaign for the election reforms contained in Alaska Ballot Measure 2 in 2020requiring more transparency in campaign donations and instituting a new election system consisting…

Public Benefit

Election Watch Inc

Research analyze publish information about elections election systems campaign finance to the public.

Civil Rights

All Americans Vote

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

Civil Rights

United for a Fair Economy Inc

United for a Fair Economy challenges the concentration of wealth and power by using popular economics education, trainings and creative communications to support social movements working for a resilient, sustainable and equitable economy.

Social Science

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fairvote Action and the most unlike its peers is The Alaska Center Education Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 17 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 6% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2/31

the rest of the field

11%

206,163/1,819,534

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.

05the grantee network

25 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

25/25

Grantees still filing

19/25

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Civil Rights$343,605Education$220,000Human Services$207,350Other$206,850Public Benefit$158,500Environment$40,000Community Improvement$7,500

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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Tides FoundationCA18.4× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides Foundation · Unite America Institute Inc · California Community Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund · The Educational Foundation of America · Windward Fund · Proteus Fund Inc · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Hopewell Fund · Impactassetsinc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors 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 organisation FAIRVOTE 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

6get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%

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: FAIRVOTE WASHINGTON.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

low risk

5 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 831994669 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 FAIRVOTE WASHINGTON, 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

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 57% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
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 Fairvote?

Find your warmest path to Fairvote 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.

FAIRVOTE

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

25 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Fairvote?

More from the funding graph

FAIRVOTE

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

25 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Fairvote?

More from the funding graph