Skip to content
Majority Forward at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Majority Forward

The organization's mission is to advocate for progressive policies.

$39M
Granted FY2019
16
Grants FY2019
5
States reached
$15M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2019.

Public Benefit$26MCivil Rights$18MHuman Services$2.2MEnvironment$1.6MCommunity Improvement$1.4MEmployment$844kInternational$22k
02FY2019 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 16 grants below total $38,186,729, the rows itemized in this filing. The $39,274,670 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,087,941 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 · FY2019

  • $50k–250k3 grants · $575k
  • $250k+13 grants · $38M
$692,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%MI FAMILIA VOTA: $860k → 11%REBUILD USA: $300k → 10%VOTEORG: $131k → 10%BLACK PAC: $614k → 17%PATRIOT MAJORITY USA: $225k → 14%WISCONSIN VOICES INC: $7k → 17%ARIZONA WINS: $350k → 11%POWERPACORG: $1.0M → 10%BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION: $10.2M → 14%ONE ARIZONA: $200k → 11%LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION OF VOTERS: $3.5M → 14%BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION: $3.3M → 14%COALITION FOR A SAFE SECURE AMERICA: $2.7M → 14%MAJORITY FORWARD: $2.2M → 14%LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $1.5M → 14%DUTY AND HONOR: $400k → 14%CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION: $100k → 14%AMERICA WORKING TOGETHER: $121k → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $14.8M → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $830k → 14%OUR COMMUNITY VOTES: $692k → 14%THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $403k → 14%THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $376k → 14%WORKING AMERICA: $580k → 14%SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $116k → 14%CITIZENS FOR STRENGTH AND SECURITY FUND: $305k → 14%PRIORITIES USA: $22k → 14%WORKING AMERICA: $264k → 14%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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$33M · 5 repeat orgs$17M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +187% since the first grant, against +83% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
11

Total granted

$33M
$4.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+187%
+83%

Still filing today

100%
45%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
Civil RightsCommunity ImprovementPublic 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

  • AV
    America Votes
    2× · 2017–2019 · $16M · revenue +495%
  • BP
    BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION
    2× · 2018–2019 · $13M · revenue ×82
  • VA
    VOTEVETS ACTION FUND INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $2.2M · revenue +129%

Funded once

  • LO
    LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $1.5M · revenue +388%
  • FO
    FOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $750k · revenue +86%
  • B
    BLACKPAC
    one grant, 2018 · $614k
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
All Americans Vote

All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!

Civil Rights
2
Defend the Vote Action Fund

To sustain and support the prioritization of comprehensive voting rights and democracy reform legislation at all levels of government.

—
3
Democracy Works Inc

The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.

Civil Rights
4
Verified Voting Foundation

Strengthen democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in all elections.

—
5
Our Voice Our Vote Arizona

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…

Civil Rights
6
Voteamerica

The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.

Civil Rights
7
Coalition for Dc Representation in Congress Education Fund

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.

Education
8
Act for America

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…

Civil Rights
9
Send the Vote Inc

Conduct digital, direct mail and other public communication campaigns to support voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.

—
10
Right Vote Inc
Civil Rights
11
Issue One Action

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…

—
12
National Popular Vote

To educate the public regarding its proposal to implement a Nationwide Popular Vote Election of the President of the United States

Public Benefit
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is For Our Future Action Fund; 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.
04the grantee network

23 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. 23 of the 28 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/23
Grantees still filing
15/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION: $13,486,877 · OtherBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITIONLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION OF VOTERS: $3,500,000 · OtherLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION OF VOTERSCOALITION FOR A SAFE SECURE AMERICA: $2,697,000 · OtherCOALITION FOR A SAFE SECURE AMERICAMAJORITY FORWARD: $2,200,693 · OtherMAJORITY FORWARDVOTEVETS ACTION FUND INC: $2,178,560 · OtherVOTEVETS ACTION FUND INC+11 more: $4,598,056 · Other+11 moreAmerica Votes: $15,656,000 · Community ImprovementAmerica Votes+1 more: $225,000 · Community ImprovementLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $1,500,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF C…POWERPAC ORG: $1,000,000 · Civil RightsPOWERPAC OR…MI FAMILIA VOTA: $860,151 · Civil RightsMI FAMILIA …THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $779,130 · Civil RightsTHE VOTER P…ARIZONA WINS: $350,000 · Civil RightsARIZONA WIN…ONE ARIZONA: $200,000 · Civil Rights+2 more: $138,671 · Civil RightsSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $116,000 · EnvironmentCENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION: $100,000 · Public Benefit
Other$28,661,186Community Improvement$15,881,000Civil Rights$4,827,952Environment$116,000Public Benefit$100,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $1,500,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetWORKING AMERICA: $843,698 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $779,130 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetDUTY AND HONOR: $400,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetARIZONA WINS: $350,000 over 1y, 22% of budgetAMERICANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH: $300,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetONE ARIZONA: $200,000 over 1y, 8.0% of budgetVOTEORG: $131,471 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetAMERICA WORKING TOGETHER: $121,358 over 1y, 100% of budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $116,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION: $100,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetWISCONSIN VOICES INC: $7,200 over 1y, 0.8% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundTides AdvocacyNEO Philanthropy Acti…America VotesOpen Society Action F…Tides FoundationNational Education As…American Federation o…All Hands on Deck Net…Hopewell FundFund for a Better Fut…Grove Action Fund
Sixteen Thirty FundDC23.4× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Majority Forward funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Majority Forward. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 28 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Majority Forward’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