Skip to content
Groundwork Action Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Groundwork Action Fund

To support community organizers, advocates, and activists working year-round in places traditionally under-resourced, excluded, and ignored; to invest in hyperlocal efforts that build sustainable political infrastructure, engage and educate voters, and build power for the underrepresented and disenfranchised; to advocate for a more…

$239k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$75k
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Public Benefit$179kEnvironment$100kArts & Culture$52kCivil Rights$50kEducation$25kHuman Services$25kCommunity Improvement$15k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $166,400, the rows itemized in this filing. The $238,551 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $72,151 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $86k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $75k
$25,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$242k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONSERVATION WEST VIRGINIA INC$75,000
OKLAHOMA VOTER ALLIANCE INC$36,000
ALABAMA VALUES PROGRESS$25,000
FOR WEST VIRGINIA'S FUTURE$15,000
THIRD SPACE$10,250
WEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HUB INC$5,150
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–22, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 50% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 13%GROUNDWORK FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%UNITED WOMEN OF COLOR: $25k → 11%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
Together for West Virginia s Future

Developing a nonprofit advocacy infrastructure.

—
2
Wv Cant Wait Mutual Aid a Non-Profit Corporation

WV Cant Wait Mutual Aid works to support grassroots mutual aid efforts community organizing and civic engagement throughout West Virginia. The organization provides training coaching strategy support convenings and educational workshops…

Civil Rights
3
West Virginia Rural Water Association Inc

The organization provides training and technical assistance to water and wastewater utility providers throughout the State of West Virginia through a variety of programs.

—
4
Rise Up Wv

The organization advocates for social welfare and political issues locally and nationally that benefit communities as a whole; such as healthcare availability, quality public education, fair wages, and secure retirement.

—
5
New Virginia Majority

New Virginia Majority is a grassroots organization that works with low income people in local communities through leadership development, trainings and workshops, issue education and advocacy.

Civil Rights
6
The West Virginia Chamber Foundation
Public Benefit
7
Virginia Coalition for Progressive Values

To establish an effective, long-term and resilient political infrastructure that advocates for and delivers public policy victories which reflect the values held in common by our members.

—
8
West Virginia Community Voices Inc

To improve the health and health care quality for the residents of west virginia.

—
9
Virginia Civic Engagement Table
Civil Rights
10
West Virginia Job Creators Alliance Inc

The west virginia jobs creator alliance is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting policy initiatives that encourage and support job creators throughout the state. our mission is to spearhead policy concepts that lead to the…

—
11
Go West Virginia Inc

Go West Virginia, Inc. is dedicated to advocating and educating the public on issues including economic growth and job creation. We will develop and advance an agenda for West Virginia to promote real policy solutions to create jobs,…

—
12
Wv Alliance for Sustainable Families

WVASF coordinates research, education, advocacy, and coalition building on issues related to asset building and economic stability.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oklahoma Voter Alliance Inc; the most unlike its peers is Groundwork Foundation. 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 14 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
4/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ALABAMA VALUES PROGRESS: $76,500 · OtherALABAMA VALUES PROGRESSRED DIRT COLLECTIVE: $52,000 · OtherRED DIRT COLLECTIVEFor West Virginia's Future Inc: $15,000 · OtherFor West Virginia's Future IncCONSERVATION WEST VIRGINIA: $75,000 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION WEST VIRGINI…WEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION INC: $25,000 · EnvironmentWEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COAL…OKLAHOMA VOTER ALLIANCE INC: $36,000 · Civil RightsOKLAHOMA VOTER …Massachusetts Voter Education Network Inc: $25,000 · Civil RightsMassachusetts V…Groundwork Foundation: $25,000 · Human ServicesGroundwork F…UNITED WOMEN OF COLOR: $25,000 · Human ServicesUNITED WOMEN…Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action Inc: $25,000 · EducationThird Space Foundation: $10,250 · EducationWV Cant Wait Votes a Non-Profit Corporation: $26,000 · Public BenefitMISSISSIPPI WORKERS CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INC: $25,000 · Crime & LegalWEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HUB INC: $5,150 · Community Improvement
Other$143,500Environment$100,000Civil Rights$61,000Human Services$50,000Education$35,250Public Benefit$26,000Crime & Legal$25,000Community Improvement$5,150

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 budgetCONSERVATION WEST VIRGINIA: $75,000 over 1y, 65% of budgetOKLAHOMA VOTER ALLIANCE INC: $36,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetWV Cant Wait Votes a Non-Profit Corporation: $26,000 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetMISSISSIPPI WORKERS CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetMassachusetts Voter Education Network Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetUNITED WOMEN OF COLOR: $25,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetKanawha Institute for Social Research & Action Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetFor West Virginia's Future Inc: $15,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetThird Space Foundation: $10,250 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HUB INC: $5,150 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Amalgamated Charitabl…Tides FoundationFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Amalgamated Charitable Foundation IncDC14.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · 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 Groundwork Action Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Groundwork Action Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 30%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 Groundwork Action Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Groundwork Action 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 14 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.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Groundwork Action’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