Skip to content
Powerpac Org at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Powerpac Org

To mobilize voters to support a social justice agenda.

$615k
Granted FY2022
3
Grants FY2022
2
States reached
$365k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through 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, FY2020 to 2022.

Public Benefit$990kHuman Services$275kCommunity Improvement$150kCivil Rights$64kEnvironment$10k
02FY2022 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • $50k–250k2 grants · $250k
  • $250k+1 grant · $365k
$200,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$840k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Power to the Polls WI$365,000
Voces de la Frontera Action$200,000
Center for Racial & Gender Equity$50,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–22, $325k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 77% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Casa In Action: $75k → 11%Voces de la Frontera Action: $200k → 17%Voces de la Frontera Action: $50k → 17%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

IL
WI
MI
NY
NJ
CA
MD
AZ
GA
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 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
Fuerza LaboralPower of Workers

Fuerza Laboral is a workers' rights center whose mission is to shift the balance of power in our economy in favor of workers by educating, training, and organizing workers to become community leaders; taking direct action to recover unpaid…

Education
2
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment
3
Latino Union of Chicago

Latino Union works to defend the rights and dignity of contingent workers, including the right to immigrate, work, live free of oppression and violence, and provide for oneself and one's family.

Human Services
4
Progressive Workers Coalition

To ensure that working class people are educated on their voting rights. The coalition engages in mobilization and educational information sessions to ensure that all workers voices are heard.

—
5
Colectiva Legal Del Pueblo

Colectiva Legal del Pueblo is a non-hierarchal collective organization founded for and by undocumented immigrants working to build community leadership and power for migrant justice through legal services, advocacy and education.

Civil Rights
6
Workers Center for Racial Just Nfp

The mission of the Workers Center For Racial Justice is to eliminate structural barriers to sustainable and living wage

Civil Rights
7
Bold Impact

Bold Impact is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting a democracy where all communities get to thrive.

Arts & Culture
8
Central Ohio Workers Center Inc

The Central Ohio Worker Center is a non-profit organization that educates, empowers, and advocates for and with low-wage and immigrant workers in Central Ohio.

Civil Rights
9
Freedom Action Now

Freedom action now, inc. (fan) is a radical queer black and southeast asian feminist organization creating change for the most impacted communities in wisconsin through voter education, leadership development, community organizing, and…

Civil Rights
10
Right to Democracy Project

Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories through participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building.

Civil Rights
11
Powerswitch Action

Powerswitch action is a national network forging collective democracy and economies in our cities and states, together with our 21 grassroots affiliates.

Community Improvement
12
Working Washington

We are workers, united across different industries to improve our working conditions and our lives. We come together as working people to build power through education, organizing, and enforcement. We work to raise and uphold standards in…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Casa in Action Inc; the most unlike its peers is Common Ground 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

15 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. 15 of the 16 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/15
Grantees still filing
9/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Power to the Polls WI: $365,000 · OtherPower to the Polls WIMOTHERING JUSTICE ACTION FUND: $150,000 · OtherMOTHERING JUSTICE ACTION FUNDCITIZEN ACTION OF WISCONSIN INC: $75,000 · OtherCITIZEN ACTION OF WISCONSIN INCNEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUND: $50,000 · OtherNEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUNDVOCES DE LA FRONTERA INC: $250,000 · Human ServicesVOCES DE LA FRONTERA INCCASA IN ACTION INC: $75,000 · Human ServicesCASA IN ACTION INCMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC: $75,000 · Civil RightsMAKE THE ROAD ACTION…FLORIDA RISING INC: $75,000 · Civil RightsFLORIDA RISING INCMichigan Peoples Campaign: $50,000 · Civil RightsMichigan Peoples Cam…Center For Racial and Gender E NFP: $50,000 · Civil RightsCenter For Racial an…BRIGHTLINE DEFENSE PROJECT: $10,000 · Civil Rights+2 more: $14,080 · Civil RightsWORKER POWER: $150,000 · Community ImprovementWORKER POWERCOMMON GROUND INC: $25,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMON GROUND…FLIC VOTES INC: $75,000 · International
Other$640,000Human Services$325,000Civil Rights$274,080Community Improvement$175,000International$75,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVOCES DE LA FRONTERA INC: $250,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetMOTHERING JUSTICE ACTION FUND: $150,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetWORKER POWER: $150,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC: $75,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetCASA IN ACTION INC: $75,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetCITIZEN ACTION OF WISCONSIN INC: $75,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetFLORIDA RISING INC: $75,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetFLIC VOTES INC: $75,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetMichigan Peoples Campaign: $50,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetCenter For Racial and Gender E NFP: $50,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetNEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCOMMON GROUND INC: $25,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetBRIGHTLINE DEFENSE PROJECT: $10,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetEQUALITY ALLIANCE OF SAN DIEGO: $7,040 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

All Hands on Deck Net…Tides AdvocacySixteen Thirty FundTides FoundationCenter for Community …Pro-Democracy CampaignState Engagement FundOpen Society Action F…America VotesWomen Donors Network …Working Families Orga…Way to Win Action Fun…
All Hands on Deck Network IncMA28.1× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Advocacy · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Tides Foundation · Center for Community Change Action · Pro-Democracy Campaign · State Engagement Fund · Open Society Action Fund Inc · America Votes · Women Donors Network Action · Working Families Organization Inc · Way to Win Action Fund Inc

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 30%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
    3get no government money at all
    3report 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, FY20–24
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Powerpac Org?

    Find your warmest path to Powerpac Org 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 16 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Powerpac Org’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