Skip to content
House Majority Forward at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

House Majority Forward

HOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD is a progressive, non-profit organization committed to promoting economic growth and opportunity, justice, environmental stewardship, and democracy in the united states of america.

$65M
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$39M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Public Benefit$53MCommunity Improvement$4.3MCivil Rights$2.5MInternational$2.5MEmployment$2.0MOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,500,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HMP$38,500,000
AMERICA VOTES$18,150,000
GIFFORDS$3,320,000
314 ACTION FUND$2,500,000
AMERICANS FOR CONTRACEPTION$1,500,000
DEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO$1,000,000
CLEAR CHOICE ACTION INC$500,000
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CLEAR CHOICE ACTION INC: $500k → 16%COMMUNITIES FOR A NEW CALIFORNIA: $500k → 12%UNITE HERE ACTION FUND: $1.0M → 17%AMERICANS FOR CONTRACEPTION: $1.5M → 14%DEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO: $1.0M → 14%CENTER FORWARD: $600k → 6%AMERICANS FOR CONTRACEPTION: $1.0M → 14%PRESERVE PROTECT & DEFEND: $100k → 14%HMP: $38.5M → 14%HOUSE MAJORITY PAC: $8.1M → 14%HOUSE MAJORITY PAC: $7.9M → 14%HOUSE MAJORITY PAC: $7.7M → 14%HOUSE MAJORITY PAC: $2.5M → 14%314 ACTION FUND: $2.5M → 14%NATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $50k → 14%CENTER FORWARD: $300k → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $18.1M → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $6.2M → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $50k → 14%WORKING AMERICA: $1.0M → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$92M · 4 repeat orgs$10.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +430% since the first grant, against +202% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
5

Total granted

$92M
$2.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+430%
+202%

Still filing today

75%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7.3M went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementPublic BenefitEducationInternationalCivil RightsOther
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

  • H
    HMP
    5× · 2020–2024 · $65M
  • AV
    America Votes
    3× · 2020–2024 · $24M · revenue +495%
  • AF
    AMERICANS FOR CONTRACEPTION
    2× · 2022–2024 · $2.5M · revenue +430% · 49% of their budget

Funded once

  • UH
    UNITE HERE ACTION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $1.0M · revenue +335% · 51% of their budget
  • WA
    WORKING AMERICAgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $1.0M · revenue +202%
  • CF
    Communities For A New California Education Fundgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $500k · revenue +374% · 43% of their budget
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
Citizens for a Working America Inc

To promote sound economic policy: 1 By engaging in citizen led initiative and referendum efforts, 2 By participating in the public policy arena, and 3 By providing educational services to the general public.

—
2
Working for America Policy Inc

To advance pro-growth, pro-worker and pro-american public policy through rigorous policy research, advocacy, and public awareness campaigns.

—
3
Network for Civic Action

Network for civic action advocates for the protection of democracy and encourages civic engagement. it evaluates programs and educates donors about how their donations can best serve those goals.

—
4
Foreign Policy for America

Foreign Policy For America is a nonpartisan advocacy organization founded to strengthen support for principled American engagement in the world.

—
5
Workers for America's Future

To be the voice for american workers who need good paying jobs, affordable healthcare, the skills and infrastructure to compete globally.

—
6
Americans for Tax Reform

American for Tax Reform (ATR) is a national grassroots organization focused on increasing public awareness about the size and regulations of government and rallying support for lower taxes, smaller government and congressional…

—
7
Advance American Democracy Inc

To protect democracy by advocating for policies to strenghten democracy, educating the public about threats to our democracy, and highlighting the unpopularity of federal policies that places money and power over the rights and freedom of…

—
8
Election Watch Inc

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

Civil Rights
9
Fair Lines America Inc

Fair Lines America, Inc. is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to strengthen our republic by supporting constitutional redistricting, open elections, and accountable government through reform, education, advocacy, and data…

Community Improvement
10
RepresentUs

RepresentUs is America's leading nonpartisan grassroots organization working for a government accountable to the people. We unite people from all backgrounds to defend democracy, root out corruption, mobilize action, and support campaigns…

Public Benefit
11
All Americans Vote

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

Civil Rights
12
Organize for Justice

Organize for justice develops diverse campaign leadership by passing on innovations and relationships from one generation of organizers to the next. the organization strives to create public support on issues affecting working americans.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Working America; the most unlike its peers is Preserve Protect and Defend. 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

12 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. 12 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
5/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HMP: $64,600,000 · OtherHMPAMERICANS FOR CONTRACEPTION: $2,500,000 · Other+4 more: $2,600,000 · OtherAmerica Votes: $24,400,000 · Community ImprovementAmerica VotesGIFFORDS: $3,320,000 · Community ImprovementGIFFORDSDEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO: $1,000,000 · Community Improvement314ACTION: $2,500,000 · InternationalCENTER FORWARD: $900,000 · Public BenefitCommunities For A New California Education Fund: $500,000 · EducationNATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $50,000 · Civil Rights
Other$69,700,000Community Improvement$28,720,000International$2,500,000Public Benefit$900,000Education$500,000Civil Rights$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 budgetAmerica Votes: $24,400,000 over 3y, 24% of budgetGIFFORDS: $3,320,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetAMERICANS FOR CONTRACEPTION: $2,500,000 over 2y, 49% of budget314ACTION: $2,500,000 over 1y, 40% of budgetDEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO: $1,000,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetUNITE HERE ACTION FUND: $1,000,000 over 1y, 51% of budgetWORKING AMERICA: $1,000,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetCENTER FORWARD: $900,000 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetClear Choice Action Inc: $500,000 over 1y, 5.8% of budgetCommunities For A New California Education Fund: $500,000 over 1y, 43% of budgetPRESERVE PROTECT AND DEFEND: $100,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetNATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Open Society Action F…Tides AdvocacySixteen Thirty Fund
Open Society Action Fund IncNY13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Open Society Action Fund Inc · Tides Advocacy · Sixteen Thirty Fund

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 House Majority Forward funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from House Majority Forward. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%4%15%34%60%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
    1get 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 House Majority Forward?

    Find your warmest path to House Majority Forward 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.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on House Majority Forward’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