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

· Public charity

League of Women Voters of WA Education Fund

The league of women voters of washington education fund is dedicated to strengthening citizen knowledge of government in washington state.

$8k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
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 2024.

Public Benefit$43kReligion$29kArts & Culture$21kHuman Services$10kRecreation & Sports$8k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$9,068
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LWV Thurston$9,689
LWV Bellingham Whatcom$9,068
LWV Kitsap$7,658
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Communications Committee of LWVWA Education Fund: $15k → 9%LWV Clark County: $5k → 9%LWV Kitsap Co: $9k → 10%LWV Bellingham Whatcom: $9k → 12%LWV Spokane Area: $10k → 12%LWV Kitsap: $8k → 10%LWV Bellingham Whatcom: $8k → 12%LWV Bellingham Whatcom: $7k → 12%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.

62%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$69k · 3 repeat orgs$42k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
5

Total granted

$69k
$42k

Still filing today

0%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’20’21’22’23’24
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 BELLINGHAM-WHATCOM COUNTY
    3× · 2022–2024 · $24k
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THURSTON COUNTY
    2× · 2020–2024 · $23k
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KITSAP
    3× · 2020–2024 · $21k

Funded once

  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WASHINGTON EDUCATION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue +78%
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE SPOKANE AREA
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
    one grant, 2023 · $7k
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
04the grantee network

1 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. 1 of the 8 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
1/1
Grantees still filing
1/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF BELLINGHAM-WHATCOM COUNTY: $24,105 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF BELLINGHAM-WHATCOM COUNTYLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THURSTON COUNTY: $23,166 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THURSTON COUNTYLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KITSAP: $21,360 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KITSAPLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE SPOKANE AREA: $9,698 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE SPOKANE AREALEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $7,453 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTYLWV Clark County: $5,095 · OtherLWV Bellingham Whatcom: $5,013 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WASHINGTON EDUCATION FUND: $15,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN…
Other$95,890Civil Rights$15,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WASHINGTON EDUCATION FUND: $15,000 over 1y, 8.3% 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 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WASHINGTON EDUCATION FUND ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

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

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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, FY20–25
    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 8 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $12k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on League of Women Voters of WA 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