· Public charity
Majority Forward
The organization's mission is to advocate for progressive policies.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2019.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 16 grants below total $38,186,729 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $39,274,670 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,087,941 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 · FY2019
- $50k–250k3 grants · $575k
- $250k+13 grants · $38M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AMERICA VOTES | $14,826,000 |
| BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION | $10,161,125 |
| LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION OF VOTERS | $3,500,000 |
| COALITION FOR A SAFE SECURE AMERICA | $2,697,000 |
| MAJORITY FORWARD | $2,200,693 |
| POWERPACORG | $1,000,000 |
| MI FAMILIA VOTA | $860,151 |
| OUR COMMUNITY VOTES | $692,000 |
| DUTY AND HONOR | $400,000 |
| THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER | $376,002 |
| ARIZONA WINS | $350,000 |
| VOTEVETS ACTION FUND | $285,060 |
| WORKING AMERICA | $263,698 |
| PATRIOT MAJORITY USA | $225,000 |
| ONE ARIZONA | $200,000 |
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 (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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.
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 +187% since the first grant, against +83% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).
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 FY2019, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12M 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
- AVAmerica Votes2× · 2017–2019 · $16M · revenue +495%
- BPBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION2× · 2018–2019 · $13M · revenue ×82
- VAVOTEVETS ACTION FUND INC2× · 2018–2019 · $2.2M · revenue +129%
Funded once
- LOLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $1.5M · revenue +388%
- FOFOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUNDgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $750k · revenue +86%
- BBLACKPACone grant, 2018 · $614k
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.
All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!
To sustain and support the prioritization of comprehensive voting rights and democracy reform legislation at all levels of government.
The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.
Strengthen democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in all elections.
Our voice our vote arizona engages in community organizing, leadership development, and civic participation efforts. the organization focuses on voter registration, education, and engagement to strengthen communities and encourage active…
The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.
Founded in 1998, dc vote is a national citizen engagement and advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening democracy and securing equality for all in the district of columbia.
Advocacy concerning democratic values, national security and defense; lobbying of government officials in favor of policies that further the defense of the u.s. and its constitution; development of coalitions with other organizations to…
Conduct digital, direct mail and other public communication campaigns to support voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.
Issue one action is uniting republicans, democrats, and independents to protect our elections and fix our political system. we are committed to free, fair, and secure elections and reducing the influence of well-financed special interests…
To educate the public regarding its proposal to implement a Nationwide Popular Vote Election of the President of the United States
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is For Our Future Action Fund and the most unlike its peers is Duty and Honor. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
23 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. 23 of the 28 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 America Votes ↗
- Who funds BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION ↗
- Who funds MAJORITY FORWARD ↗
- Who funds VOTEVETS ACTION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
- Who funds POWERPAC ORG ↗
- Who funds MI FAMILIA VOTA ↗
- Who funds WORKING AMERICA ↗
- Who funds THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds FOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds OUR COMMUNITY VOTES INC ↗
- Who funds DUTY AND HONOR ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA WINS ↗
- Who funds Citizens for Strength and Security Fund ↗
- Who funds AMERICANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH ↗
- Who funds PATRIOT MAJORITY USA ↗
- Who funds ONE ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds INDIGENOUS VOTE ↗
- Who funds VOTEORG ↗
- Who funds AMERICA WORKING TOGETHER ↗
- Who funds SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN VOICES INC ↗
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: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Tides Advocacy · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · America Votes · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Tides Foundation · National Education Association of the United States · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Hopewell Fund · Fund for a Better Future Inc · Grove Action Fund
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 Majority Forward 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Majority Forward?
Find your warmest path to Majority Forward 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.