Skip to content
League of Women Voters Education Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$830k
Granted FY2025still arriving
24
Grants FY2025still arriving
24
States reached
$59k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Public Benefit$3.6M
02FY2025 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 24 grants below total $661,875, the rows itemized in this filing. The $829,725 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $167,850 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k23 grants · $603k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $59k
$22,750
Median grant
24
States reached
$10M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%LWV OF ARIZONA: $57k → 11%LWV OF MINNESOTA: $28k → 14%LWV OF PENNSYLVANIA EDUCATION FUND: $56k → 12%LWV OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $30k → 14%LWV OF TEXAS: $124k → 10%LWV OF THE DISCTRICT OF COLUMBUS: $78k → 14%LWV OF FLORIDA: $45k → 13%LWV OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND: $49k → 16%LWV OF ARIZONA: $59k → 15%LWV OF MISSOURI EDUCATION FUND: $30k → 11%LWV OF WISCONSIN: $63k → 10%LWV OF NORTH CAROLINA: $29k → 8%LWV OF GEORGIA: $40k → 13%LWV OF COLORADO: $23k → 12%LWV OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND: $66k → 15%LWV OF VIRGINIA: $47k → 22%LWV OF PENNSYLVANIA: $46k → 12%LWV OF TEXAS: $56k → 10%LWV OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $69k → 14%LWV OF FLORIDA: $35k → 13%LWV OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND: $43k → 16%LWV OF MISSOURI EDUCATION FUND: $23k → 11%LWV OF WISCONSIN: $46k → 10%CITIZEN'S EDUCATION FUND: $26k → 8%LWV OF GEORGIA: $33k → 13%LWV OF COLORADO: $23k → 12%LWV OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND: $56k → 15%LWV OF TEXAS: $37k → 10%LWV OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $59k → 14%LWV OF FLORIDA: $25k → 13%LWV OF MICHIGAN: $29k → 16%LWV OF MISSOURI EDUCATION FUND: $23k → 11%LWV OF WISCONSIN: $44k → 10%LWV OF NORTH CAROLINA INC: $24k → 8%LWV OF GEORGIA: $28k → 13%LWV OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND: $55k → 15%LWV OF TEXAS: $30k → 10%LWV OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $31k → 14%LWV OF MICHIGAN: $29k → 16%LWV OF WISCONSIN: $37k → 10%LWV OF NORTH CAROLINA: $23k → 8%LWV OF OHIO: $48k → 15%LWV OF TEXAS: $24k → 10%LWV OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $23k → 14%LWV OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND: $24k → 16%LWV OF WISCONSIN: $29k → 10%LWV OF NORTH CAROLINA: $22k → 8%LWV OF WISCONSIN: $24k → 10%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

ME
MN
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
SD
OH
PA
NJ
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
VA
MD
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.3M · 36 repeat orgs$304k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +24% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

36 repeat relationships: 24 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

36
18

Total granted

$3.3M
$304k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
0%

Still filing today

64%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Civil RightsPublic BenefitOther
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

  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND
    9× · 2017–2025 · $289k · revenue +215%
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND
    9× · 2017–2025 · $219k · revenue +419% · 33% of their budget
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WISCONSIN INC
    7× · 2017–2023 · $197k · revenue +227%

Funded once

  • LO
    LWV OF THE DISCTRICT OF COLUMBUS
    one grant, 2018 · $78k
  • LO
    LWV OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    one grant, 2021 · $59k
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA EDUCAT
    one grant, 2021 · $18k · revenue -99%
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
League of Women Voters of Westchester Education Foundation
Civil Rights
2
League of Women Voters of Los Angeles

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…

—
3
League of Women Voters San Jose-Santa Clara

Voter education and increasing awareness of issues facing electorate.

Public Benefit
4
League of Women Voters of Salt Lake City

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…

Civil Rights
5
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto

Voter Services and Education

—
6
The League of Women Voters of Texas

Empower voters and defend democracy in Texas. Provide support to local Leagues and support the development of new local chapters.

—
7
League of Women Voters of Ohio

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…

—
8
League of Women Voters of Maryland Inc

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.

—
9
League of Women Voters of the United States

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.

—
10
League of Women Voters of the San Antonio Area

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…

Civil Rights
11
League of Women Voters of Marin County

Citizen and voter education

—
12
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.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is League of Women Voters of Georgia; 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.
04the grantee network

32 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

8
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
29/32
Grantees still filing
19/32
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TEXAS EDUCATION FUND: $291,900 · OtherTHE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TEXAS EDUCATION FUNDLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF GEORGIA: $162,710 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF GEORGIALeague of Women Voters of Maine: $159,550 · OtherLeague of Women Voters of MaineLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA: $143,400 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONALEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF VIRGINIA EDUCATION FUND INC: $118,950 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF VIRGINIA EDUCATION FUND INCLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MINNESOTA EDUC: $117,000 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MINNESOTA EDUCLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA: $104,750 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $91,000 · OtherLWV OF WISCONSIN: $82,500 · OtherLWV OF THE DISCTRICT OF COLUMBUS: $78,000 · Other+27 more: $699,436 · Other+27 moreLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND: $288,666 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO EDUCATION FU…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND: $218,522 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATIO…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WISCONSIN INC: $196,825 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WISCONSIN INCLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA CITIZEN EDUCATION FUND: $151,638 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA CITI…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $123,495 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF C…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI EDUCATION FUND: $100,500 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI EDUCATIO…League of Women Voters of Colorado: $97,262 · Civil RightsLeague of Women Voters of ColoradoLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW JERSEY EDUCATION FUND: $61,106 · Civil Rights+7 more: $156,790 · Civil Rights+7 moreThe League of Women Voters of North Carolina Inc: $163,350 · Public BenefitLeague of Women Voters of Kansas: $19,250 · Public Benefit
Other$2,049,196Civil Rights$1,394,804Public Benefit$182,600

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND: $288,666 over 9y, 15% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND: $218,522 over 9y, 33% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WISCONSIN INC: $196,825 over 7y, 13% of budgetThe League of Women Voters of North Carolina Inc: $163,350 over 8y, 32% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF GEORGIA: $162,710 over 8y, 43% of budgetLeague of Women Voters of Maine: $159,550 over 7y, 8.9% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA CITIZEN EDUCATION FUND: $151,638 over 5y, 11% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $123,495 over 3y, 43% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF VIRGINIA EDUCATION FUND INC: $118,950 over 6y, 53% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MINNESOTA EDUC: $117,000 over 6y, 4.3% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA: $104,750 over 4y, 20% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI EDUCATION FUND: $100,500 over 5y, 48% of budgetLeague of Women Voters of Colorado: $97,262 over 5y, 12% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $91,000 over 4y, 6.8% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW JERSEY EDUCATION FUND: $61,106 over 4y, 8.3% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND: $42,540 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA FE COUNTY: $37,750 over 3y, 49% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TENNESSEE: $36,250 over 3y, 19% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OREGON: $30,750 over 4y, 5.9% of budgetLeague of Women Voters of Kansas: $19,250 over 2y, 22% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA EDUCAT: $18,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA: $15,450 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetLeague of Women Voters of Colorado Inc: $14,175 over 1y, 56% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA: $13,000 over 2y, 12% of budgetLeague of Women Voters of Maryland Inc: $9,125 over 1y, 19% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF DALLAS: $5,500 over 1y, 3.6% 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.

  • 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 ↗

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.

League of Women Voter…Hopewell FundNew Venture FundSeattle FoundationThe Pfizer Foundation…Donor Advised Charita…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
League of Women Voters of the United StatesDC64.3× affinity28 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%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
    4get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    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.

    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 54 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 League of Women Voters Education’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