· Public charity
League of Women Voters Education Fund
The LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND works to register voters and provide voters with election information through voter guides as well as candidate forums and debates.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 24 grants below total $661,875 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $829,725 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $167,850 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k23 grants · $603k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $59k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LWV OF ARIZONA | $59,000 |
| LWV OF OHIO | $48,000 |
| LWV OF VIRGINIA | $46,500 |
| LWV OF FLORIDA | $44,750 |
| LWV OF PENNSYLVANIA | $43,500 |
| LWV OF TEXAS | $37,000 |
| LWV OF WISCONSIN | $36,500 |
| LWV OF GEORGIA | $32,500 |
| LWV OF NORTH CAROLINA | $29,000 |
| LWV OF MICHIGAN | $29,000 |
| LWV OF MINNESOTA | $28,000 |
| LWV OF MAINE | $22,750 |
| LWV OF COLORADO | $22,750 |
| LWV OF MISSOURI | $21,250 |
| LWV OF ALABAMA | $20,375 |
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 92% 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +24% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
36 repeat relationships — 24 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- LOLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND9× · 2017–2025 · $289k · revenue +215%
- LOLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND9× · 2017–2025 · $219k · revenue +419% · 33% of their budget
- LOLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WISCONSIN INC7× · 2017–2023 · $197k · revenue +227%
Funded once
- LOLWV OF THE DISCTRICT OF COLUMBUSone grant, 2018 · $78k
- LOLWV OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAone grant, 2021 · $59k
- LOLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA EDUCATone grant, 2021 · $18k · revenue -99%
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.
The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and…
Voter education and increasing awareness of issues facing electorate.
The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization working to protect and expand voting rights and ensure everyone is represented in our democracy. We empower voters and defend democracy through advocacy, education and…
Voter Services and Education
Empower voters and defend democracy in Texas. Provide support to local Leagues and support the development of new local chapters.
To encourage informed and active participation in government; work to increase understanding of major public policy issues and influence public policy through education and advocacy.
Lwvus, a nonpartisan organization, encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, works to increase the understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.
Citizen and voter education
The league of women voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and…
The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization working to protect and expand voting rights and ensure everyone is represented in our democracy. We empower voters and defend democracy through advocacy, education, and…
The league of women voters education fund works to register voters and provide voters with election information through voter guides as well as candidate forums and debates.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is League of Women Voters of Georgia and the most unlike its peers is League of Women Voters of Alabama Education Fund Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 47 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
32 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. 32 of the 54 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 THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TEXAS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds The League of Women Voters of North Carolina Inc ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF GEORGIA ↗
- Who funds League of Women Voters of Maine ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA CITIZEN EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF VIRGINIA EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MINNESOTA EDUC ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds League of Women Voters of Colorado ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW JERSEY EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TENNESSEE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA FE COUNTY ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TENNESSEE ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OREGON ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI ↗
- Who funds League of Women Voters of Kansas ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA EDUCAT ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA ↗
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: League of Women Voters of the United States · Hopewell Fund · New Venture Fund · Seattle Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 League of Women Voters Education 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.