Skip to content
Impetus Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Impetus Fund

To operate exclusively for the purpose of promoting social welfare, including, but not limited to, providing public education, conducting advocacy, and encouraging civic engagement.

$7.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$3.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

78% of Impetus Fund’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Sixteen Thirty Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 5 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2024, the last year Impetus Fund named its own grantees at scale: 8 organizations, $7M. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

6
’21
1
’22
1
’23
8
’24
5
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2025.

Civil Rights$77MCommunity Improvement$7.1MEmployment$530kPublic Benefit$207k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $56k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $111k
  • $250k+6 grants · $6.8M
$500,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$5.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WORKMONEY INC$3,000,000
NORTH FUND$1,100,000
DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER$1,000,000
FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION$1,000,000
FAMILY FRIENDLY ACTION FUND$500,000
FAIR DEMOCRACY$250,000
THE ACT NOW PROJECT$111,000
CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION$46,460
ADLER UNIVERSITY$10,000
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%THE ACT NOW PROJECT: $111k → 14%WORK FOR AMERICA INC: $530k → 20%FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $55.9M → 14%WORKMONEY INC: $3.0M → 17%ADLER UNIVERSITY: $10k → 14%FAMILY FRIENDLY ACTION FUND: $500k → 7%COOPERATIVE IMPACT LAB: $450k → 20%FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $1.0M → 14%FORWARD ACTION FUND: $500k → 7%VOTE TRIPLING ACTION FUND: $510k → 14%FAIR DEMOCRACY: $250k → 14%FUND FOR STATES: $50k → 14%DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: $1.0M → 14%DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: $1.0M → 14%ACRONYM: $500k → 14%SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $7.7M → 14%CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $4.0M → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $3.4M → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $2.2M → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $1.5M → 14%NORTH FUND: $1.1M → 14%CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $46k → 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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$71M · 5 repeat orgs$5.5M to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call). Read against FY2024, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
3

Total granted

$71M
$1.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+95%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $692k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Civil RightsPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementEducationOther
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

  • FF
    FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION
    2× · 2021–2024 · $57M · revenue ×47
  • AV
    America Votes
    3× · 2021–2023 · $7.1M · revenue -28%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION
    2× · 2021–2024 · $4.0M · revenue ×12

Funded once

  • VR
    VOTE REV ACTION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $510k · revenue ×1,290
  • A
    ACRONYM
    one grant, 2021 · $500k
  • TC
    THE COOPERATIVE IMPACT LAB
    one grant, 2021 · $450k · revenue -36% · 39% 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
Democracy Works Inc

The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.

Civil Rights
2
Voteamerica

The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.

Civil Rights
3
Register America

The organization is founded for social welfare purposes, including assisting with voter registration and advocating for policies which lead to increased voter registration in the united states.

—
4
Verified Voting Foundation

Strengthen democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in all elections.

—
5
Upturn Inc

Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.

—
6
Actblue Civics Inc

To develop and promote innovative fundraising tools and practices that utilize internet technology among social welfare organizations for the purpose of increasing grassroots engagement in social welfare activities, as well as…

Unclassified
7
Defend the Vote Action Fund

To sustain and support the prioritization of comprehensive voting rights and democracy reform legislation at all levels of government.

—
8
One for Democracy Action Fund

One for democracy unlocks resources to build a healthy democracy by fostering meaningful relationships between philanthropists and the democracy leaders of our time.

—
9
Democracy Forward

See schedule o.this organization seeks to build collective power to defend and advance a vibrant democracy that benefits all people.

—
10
America's Newspapers

Providing research, education and practical information all aimed at optimizing newspapers' business operations, deepening their community engagement and enhancing the quality of their journalism.

Employment
11
Fdd Action

FDD Action is a non-profit, non-partisan 504(c)4 organization established to advocate for effective policies to promote U.S. National Security and defend free nations.

Community Improvement
12
All Voting Is Local

All voting is local (avl) focuses its nonpartisan programming in three core ways: 1) fighting voter suppression against american citizens and opening up pathways to registration and voting - at every turn and for eligible voters; 2)…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Work for America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Adler University. 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

17 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.

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)
16/17
Grantees still filing
5/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $56,851,537 · Public BenefitFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION+2 more: $1,150,000 · Public BenefitSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $7,700,000 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN TH…America Votes: $7,112,918 · Community ImprovementAmerica V…WORKMONEY INC: $3,000,000 · OtherDEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: $2,000,000 · OtherWORK FOR AMERICA INC: $530,000 · OtherACRONYM: $500,000 · OtherTHE COOPERATIVE IMPACT LAB: $450,000 · Other+1 more: $111,600 · OtherCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $4,046,460 · Civil RightsFORWARD ACTION FUND: $1,000,000 · Civil RightsVOTE REV ACTION FUND: $510,000 · Civil RightsFAIR DEMOCRACY: $250,000 · Civil Rights+1 more: $111,000 · Civil RightsAdler University: $10,000 · Education
Public Benefit$58,001,537Environment$7,700,000Community Improvement$7,112,918Other$6,591,600Civil Rights$5,917,460Education$10,000

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 budgetFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $56,851,537 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetAmerica Votes: $7,112,918 over 3y, 2.5% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $4,046,460 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWORKMONEY INC: $3,000,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetDEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: $2,000,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetNORTH FUND: $1,100,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetFORWARD ACTION FUND: $1,000,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetTHE COOPERATIVE IMPACT LAB: $450,000 over 1y, 39% of budgetFAIR DEMOCRACY: $250,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetTHE ACT NOW PROJECT: $111,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetFUND FOR STATES: $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetAdler University: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundHopewell FundFuture Forward USA Ac…Advocacy Action Fund …Bright Future FundWay to Win Action Fun…America VotesOpen Society Action F…Fund for a Better Fut…Oakw FundPacific Environmental…American Future Repub…
Sixteen Thirty FundDC27.7× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Hopewell Fund · Future Forward USA Action · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Bright Future Fund · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · America Votes · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Fund for a Better Future Inc · Oakw Fund · Pacific Environmental Coalition · American Future Republic

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
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, FY20–24
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Impetus Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Impetus 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 17 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 Impetus’ 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