· Public charity
Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fund
The Charitys mission is to conduct charitable grant making and other charitable and educational activities in order to support and foster sound election systems and election integrity.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2024–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $50k–250k6 grants · $813k
- $250k+5 grants · $3.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Article III Foundation | $1,875,000 |
| Strong Communities Foundation for Arizona | $545,000 |
| American Principles Project Foundation | $500,000 |
| FDRLST Media Foundation | $400,000 |
| Election Integrity Network Inc | $367,875 |
| Election Research Institute | $200,000 |
| Michigan Fair Elections Institute | $200,000 |
| The John K MacIver Institute for Public Policy | $185,000 |
| Virginia Institute for Public Policy | $127,500 |
| Electoral Process Education Corporation | $50,000 |
| Citizen Outreach Inc | $50,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY24–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 84% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 100% of Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fund’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 24% of the giving stays in DC; read by stated purpose it is 0% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
5 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 29% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.2M 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
- FMFDRLST MEDIA FOUNDATION2× · 2024–2025 · $800k · revenue 0%
- SCSTRONG COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION2× · 2024–2025 · $620k · revenue 0%
- VIVIRGINIA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY2× · 2024–2025 · $453k · revenue 0%
Funded once
- SFState Freedom Caucus Foundationone grant, 2024 · $300k · revenue 0%
- IAImmigration Accountability Projectone grant, 2024 · $150k · 32% of their budget
- TPTEA PARTY PATRIOTS FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2024 · $100k · revenue 0%
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.
To educate journalists and the public, and foster public debate, about improving political journalism to reflect public needs and hold the powerful accountable.
Securing reforms to the electoral count act
Research analyze publish information to public on elections election systems laws and campaign financing.
Voter education around policy
Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions
To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.
To promote and provide education related to protecting voting rights, strengthening our democracy, ballot access, the importance of free and fair elections, and a better future for the American people.
It is the mission of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) to provide education, research, analysis and recommendations to policy makers, opinion leaders and the American people designed to help solve public policy problems through…
Our mission is to strengthen democracy by promoting non-partisan voter registration and education to foster greater citizen participation in elections, while increasing public awareness of voter suppression.
To research voter registration and voting processes and to education the public as to the filings; to study election laws and processes to determine the best possible laws and processes in furtherance of democracy and to educate the public…
To support legal, political & administrative efforts to protect fair voting.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tea Party Patriots Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Fdrlst Media Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 16 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 ARTICLE III FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FDRLST MEDIA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds STRONG COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds American Principles Project Foundation ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY ↗
- Who funds State Freedom Caucus Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE JOHN K MACIVER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC ↗
- Who funds ELECTION RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN FAIR ELECTIONS INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Immigration Accountability Project ↗
- Who funds Citizen Outreach Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds TEA PARTY PATRIOTS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY ↗
- Who funds ELECTORAL PROCESS EDUCATION CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Wisconsin Voter Alliance Inc ↗
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: Donors Trust Inc · Bradley Impact Fund Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fund 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.
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 Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fund?
Find your warmest path to Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fund 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.