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

· Public charity

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.

$42k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$8k
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, FY2019 to 2025.

Public Benefit$806kCivil Rights$10k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $32,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $42,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,000 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.
$8,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$8.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LWV OF PENNSYLVANIA$8,000
LWV OF ILLINOIS$8,000
LWV OF SOUTH DAKOTA$8,000
LWV OF NEW YORK$8,000
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 (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 86% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA: $23k → 11%LWV OF MINNESOTA: $7k → 14%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MONTANA: $9k → 9%LWV OF PENNSYLVANIA: $8k → 10%LWV OF CALIFORNIA: $29k → 12%LWV OF NEW YORK: $8k → 14%LWV OF OKLAHOMA: $8k → 16%LWV OF ARKANSAS: $15k → 17%ERA COALITION INC: $10k → 14%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA: $24k → 13%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF IOWA: $9k → 15%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN: $10k → 16%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALABAMA: $10k → 19%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OREGON ADVOCACY FUND: $14k → 14%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TENNESSEE: $11k → 14%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF GEORGIA: $15k → 13%LWV OF COLORADO: $9k → 12%LWV OF INDIANA: $11k → 16%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO: $22k → 15%LWV OF WASHINGTON: $10k → 9%LWV OF ILLINOIS: $8k → 14%LWV OF VIRGINIA: $13k → 22%LWV OF SOUTH DAKOTA: $29k → 9%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF LOUISIANA: $9k → 29%LWV OF MARYLAND: $9k → 6%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KENTUCKY: $15k → 15%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA: $13k → 11%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MONTANA: $8k → 9%LWV OF CALIFORNIA: $20k → 12%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA: $21k → 13%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN: $7k → 16%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALABAMA: $9k → 19%LWV OF FLORIDA EDUCATION FUND INC: $9k → 14%LWV OF GEORGIA: $13k → 13%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO: $10k → 15%LWV OF VIRGINIA: $11k → 22%LWV OF SOUTH DAKOTA: $8k → 9%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MARYLAND: $8k → 6%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KENTUCKY: $12k → 15%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA: $12k → 11%LWV OF FLORIDA EDUCATION FUND INC: $10k → 13%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TENNESSEE: $8k → 14%LWV OF GEORGIA: $8k → 13%LWV OF OHIO: $9k → 15%LWV OF KENTUCKY: $9k → 15%LWV OF ARIZONA: $11k → 11%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KENTUCKY: $8k → 15%LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KENTUCKY: $7k → 15%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

AK
ME
WA
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
OR
NV
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
CA
CO
MO
KY
VA
MD
DE
AZ
AR
TN
NC
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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$528k · 20 repeat orgs$288k to everyone else

20 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 18 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

20
27

Total granted

$528k
$272k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+10%

Still filing today

65%
48%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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 GEORGIA
    4× · 2019–2024 · $43k · revenue +126%
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO
    3× · 2019–2024 · $38k · revenue +197%
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND
    3× · 2020–2022 · $24k · revenue +354%

Funded once

  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SOUTH DAKOTA
    one grant, 2021 · $29k
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH DAKOTA
    one grant, 2021 · $20k
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALASKA
    one grant, 2020 · $16k
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
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.

—
7
League of Women Voters of South Carolina

Promote political responsibility through informed and active participation

Civil Rights
8
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.

—
9
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.

—
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 of the Cincinnati Area

The league of women voters is a nonpartisan political organization encouraging informed and active participation in government. it influences public policy through education and advocacy. we never support or oppose any political party or…

Civil Rights
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 Era Coalition 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

28 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. 28 of the 49 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
27/28
Grantees still filing
12/28
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA EDUCATION FUND: $46,000 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA EDUCATION FUNDLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA: $44,500 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDALEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF GEORGIA: $43,345 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF GEORGIALEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO: $38,122 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIOLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF LOUISIANA EDUCATION FUND INC: $35,498 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF LOUISIANA EDUCATION FUND INCTHE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KENTUCKY SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND: $33,565 · OtherTHE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KENTUCKY SPECIAL PROJECTS FUNDLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SOUTH DAKOTA: $29,250 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALABAMA EDUCATION FUND INC: $24,500 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF VIRGINIA EDUCATION FUND INC: $24,000 · Other+27 more: $297,117 · Other+27 moreLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND: $48,500 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF C…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND: $24,100 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF M…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TENNESSEE EDUCATION FUND: $19,625 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF T…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA CITIZEN EDUCATION FUND: $18,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF P…League of Women Voters of Colorado: $16,000 · Civil RightsLeague of Women Voters of C…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OREGON: $13,750 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF O…ERA COALITION INC: $10,000 · Civil RightsLeague of Women Voters of Washington: $10,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA EDUCAT: $9,500 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND: $9,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND: $8,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI EDUCATION FUND: $7,000 · Civil Rights+1 more: $6,500 · Civil Rights
Other$615,897Civil Rights$199,975

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 CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND: $48,500 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA EDUCATION FUND: $46,000 over 3y, 17% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF GEORGIA: $43,345 over 4y, 20% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO: $38,122 over 3y, 11% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND: $24,100 over 3y, 9.4% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA CITIZEN EDUCATION FUND: $18,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MARYLAND INC: $16,000 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetLeague of Women Voters of Colorado: $16,000 over 2y, 9.0% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $14,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetLeague of Women Voters of Maine Education Fund Inc: $12,500 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARIZONA: $11,500 over 1y, 12% of budgetERA COALITION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 7.5% of budgetLeague of Women Voters of Washington: $10,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA EDUCAT: $9,500 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO EDUCATION FUND: $9,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND: $8,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MINNESOTA EDUC: $7,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OKLAHOMA: $6,500 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PA: $6,000 over 1y, 1.5% 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.

League of Women Voter…Hopewell FundNew Venture FundSeattle FoundationVanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
League of Women Voters Education FundDC64.3× affinity28 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: League of Women Voters Education Fund · Hopewell Fund · New Venture Fund · Seattle Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 of the United States funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from League of Women Voters of the United States. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%2%6%14%25%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
    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 49 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 of the United States’ 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