Skip to content
Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$4.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$1.9M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through 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, FY2024 to 2025.

Public Benefit$4.0MCivil Rights$1.3MArts & Culture$800kCrime & Legal$75k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k6 grants · $813k
  • $250k+5 grants · $3.7M
$200,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$272k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
Citizen Outreach Inc$50,000
Electoral Process Education Corporation$50,000
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 (FY24–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 84% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Strong Communities Foundation for Arizona: $545k → 11%Election Research Institute: $200k → 11%Election Integrity Network Inc: $368k → 14%Michigan Fair Elections Institute: $200k → 16%Wisconsin Voter Alliance Corp: $25k → 8%The John K MacIver Institute for Public Policy: $185k → 10%Wisconsin Inst for Law & Liberty: $75k → 17%Tea Party Patriots Foundation Inc: $100k → 6%Immigration Accountability Project: $150k → 19%Electoral Process Education Corporation: $50k → 6%American Principles Project Foundation: $500k → 7%Virginia Institute for Public Polic: $325k → 12%Citizen Outreach Foundation: $89k → 13%Strong Communities Foundation of AZ: $75k → 11%State Freedom Caucus Foundation: $300k → 14%The John K MacIver Inst for Pub Pol: $75k → 10%Virginia Institute for Public Policy: $128k → 12%Citizen Outreach Inc: $50k → 13%FDRLST Media Foundation: $400k → 14%FDRLST Media Foundation: $400k → 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

WI
MI
NV
PA
VA
AZ
DC
MS
GA
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 100% of Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fund’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 24% of the giving stays in DC; by stated purpose, 0%.

Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fundlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

37%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.3M · 5 repeat orgs$3.8M to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
5

Total granted

$2.3M
$650k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 29% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.2M went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’24’25
Public BenefitCivil RightsEducationCrime & LegalOther
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

  • FM
    FDRLST MEDIA FOUNDATION
    2× · 2024–2025 · $800k · revenue 0%
  • SC
    STRONG COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION
    2× · 2024–2025 · $620k · revenue 0%
  • VI
    VIRGINIA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $453k · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • SF
    State Freedom Caucus Foundation
    one grant, 2024 · $300k · revenue 0%
  • IA
    Immigration Accountability Project
    one grant, 2024 · $150k · 32% of their budget
  • TP
    TEA PARTY PATRIOTS FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2024 · $100k · revenue 0%
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
Press Watch

To educate journalists and the public, and foster public debate, about improving political journalism to reflect public needs and hold the powerful accountable.

—
2
Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—
3
Election Watch Inc

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

Civil Rights
4
Elevated Voices Inc

Voter education around policy

—
5
Civica Initiatives

Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions

Community Improvement
6
Institute for Public Accuracy

To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.

Arts & Culture
7
Election Freedom Inc

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.

—
8
Institute for Policy Innovation

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…

—
9
Democratic Policy Institute

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.

Social Science
10
Institute for Fair Elections

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…

Public Benefit
11
Vox Populi Foundation
Civil Rights
12
Texas Justice Fund

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

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tea Party Patriots Foundation Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

15 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. 15 of the 16 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
4/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ARTICLE III FOUNDATION: $1,875,000 · Civil RightsARTICLE III FOUNDATIONSTRONG COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION: $620,000 · Civil RightsSTRONG COMMUNITIES FOUNDATIONImmigration Accountability Project: $150,000 · Civil RightsImmigration Accountability Project+2 more: $75,000 · Civil RightsFDRLST MEDIA FOUNDATION: $800,000 · Public BenefitFDRLST MEDIA FOUNDATIONVIRGINIA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: $452,500 · Public BenefitVIRGINIA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICYState Freedom Caucus Foundation: $300,000 · Public BenefitState Freedom Caucus FoundationTHE JOHN K MACIVER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC: $260,000 · Public BenefitTHE JOHN K MACIVER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC…ELECTION RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $200,000 · Public BenefitELECTION RESEARCH INSTITUTETEA PARTY PATRIOTS FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 · Public BenefitAmerican Principles Project Foundation: $500,000 · EducationAmerican Pri…MICHIGAN FAIR ELECTIONS INSTITUTE: $200,000 · EducationMICHIGAN FAI…ELECTION INTEGRITY NETWORK INC: $367,875 · OtherELECTION …Citizen Outreach Foundation Inc: $139,100 · OtherCitizen O…WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY: $75,000 · Crime & Legal
Civil Rights$2,720,000Public Benefit$2,112,500Education$700,000Other$506,975Crime & Legal$75,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFDRLST MEDIA FOUNDATION: $800,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetSTRONG COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION: $620,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetVIRGINIA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: $452,500 over 2y, 24% of budgetState Freedom Caucus Foundation: $300,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetTHE JOHN K MACIVER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC: $260,000 over 2y, 23% of budgetImmigration Accountability Project: $150,000 over 1y, 32% of budgetCitizen Outreach Foundation Inc: $139,100 over 2y, 28% of budgetTEA PARTY PATRIOTS FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetWISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY: $75,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetWisconsin Voter Alliance Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 7.3% 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.

Donors Trust IncBradley Impact Fund I…Vanguard Charitable E…American Endowment Fo…Natl Christian Charit…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donors Trust IncVA27.5× affinity11 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections Fund. 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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 16 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Foundation for Accountability Integrity & Research in Elections’ 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