· Public charity
Priorities USA Foundation
PRIORITIES USA FOUNDATION works to protect and expand access to the ballot for every eligible voter in america.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k10 grants · $160k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $75k
- $250k+2 grants · $16M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PRIORITIES USA | $11,379,433 |
| BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION | $4,650,000 |
| AMERICA VOTES EDUCATION FUND | $75,000 |
| PASTORS UNITED COMMUNITY ADVOCACY INC | $25,000 |
| EMGAGE FOUNDATION INC | $20,000 |
| FUTURE GEORGIA | $20,000 |
| EQUITY FOR ALL INC | $20,000 |
| IN THIS TOGETHER NEPA INC | $20,000 |
| FAIR WISCONSIN EDUCATION FUND | $15,000 |
| PROGRESSNOW INC | $10,000 |
| ASIAN AMERICAN MIDWEST PROGRESSIVES | $10,000 |
| PIZZA TO THE POLLS | $10,000 |
| LA BREGA Y FUERZA FUND INC | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +26% since the first grant, against -8% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.9M 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
- PUPRIORITIES USA7× · 2018–2024 · $45M · revenue +44% · 43% of their budget
- IDINFORMING DEMOCRACY2× · 2022–2023 · $2.1M · revenue +1%
- LALAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER2× · 2019–2021 · $150k · revenue +20%
Funded once
- MCMMAC COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2019 · $500k · revenue -18%
- TCThe Center for Election Innovation & Researchgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $250k · revenue +79%
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2021 · $250k · revenue -8%
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.
The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.
All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!
Fair democracy works to ensure that the roots of american democracy are healthy with strong voting rights and access, an engaged and informed electorate, an open and accountable government and trusted messengers engaging americans in civil…
To protect and, where necessary, restore the primacy of all americans shared civil rights. the acr project exists to systematically sponsor litigation, file administrative complaints, participate in rulemaking, and educate both government…
Our goal is to increase power in our communities through effective voting. We increase voter registration and help develop voting infrastructure and to pursue policies that expands access to the ballot.
Protect voting rights in the united states for all citizens and expand voting rights to citizens who have been historically disenfranchised or under-represented in the electoral process.
Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories through participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building.
It is the mission of APIAVote to encourage and promote civic participation of Asian Pacific Islander Americans in the electoral and public processes at the national, state, and local levels. APIAVote also aims to educate and inform Asian…
To educate the public regarding its proposal to implement a Nationwide Popular Vote Election of the President of the United States
Secure Democracy USA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to build stronger elections, state by state.
Fair fight action promotes fair elections in georgia and around the country, encourages voter participation in elections, educates voters about elections and their voting rights, and advocates for progressive issues.
The jewish electorate institute (jei) is an independent, non-partisan 501(c)(3) organization that surveys, interprets, reports, and educates the public about the perspectives, voting behaviors, and motivations of the american jewish…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fair Wisconsin Education Fund Inc and the most unlike its peers is Equity for All Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 9 years old; the field is 18. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 25% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
25 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. 25 of the 27 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 PRIORITIES USA ↗
- Who funds BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION ↗
- Who funds INFORMING DEMOCRACY ↗
- Who funds MMAC COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds The Center for Election Innovation & Research ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds America Votes Education Fund ↗
- Who funds UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ↗
- Who funds UltraViolet Education Fund ↗
- Who funds PASTORS UNITED COMMUNITY ADVOCACY INC ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT ↗
- Who funds America Votes ↗
- Who funds Emgage Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds IN THIS TOGETHER NEPA INC ↗
- Who funds Equity for All Inc ↗
- Who funds Future Georgia Inc DBA Georgia Values Action ↗
- Who funds FAIR WISCONSIN EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds LA BREGA Y FUERZA INC ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICAN MIDWEST PROGRESSIVES ↗
- Who funds Pizza to the Polls ↗
- Who funds WORLD INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS NOW INC ↗
- Who funds NEW GEORGIA PROJECT 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: Tides Foundation · New Venture Fund · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Hopewell Fund · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Sixteen Thirty Fund · The Ford Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift 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 Priorities USA Foundation 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 Priorities USA Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Priorities USA Foundation 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.