Skip to content
Priorities USA Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Priorities USA Foundation

PRIORITIES USA FOUNDATION works to protect and expand access to the ballot for every eligible voter in america.

$16M
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
9
States reached
$11M
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 2024.

Public Benefit$45MCivil Rights$7.9MCommunity Improvement$510kEducation$315kPhilanthropy$300kCrime & Legal$150kReligion$25kHealth$10k
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k10 grants · $160k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $75k
  • $250k+2 grants · $16M
$20,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$8.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
IN THIS TOGETHER NEPA INC$20,000
EQUITY FOR ALL INC$20,000
FUTURE GEORGIA$20,000
FAIR WISCONSIN EDUCATION FUND$15,000
PROGRESSNOW INC$10,000
ASIAN AMERICAN MIDWEST PROGRESSIVES$10,000
LA BREGA Y FUERZA FUND INC$10,000
PIZZA TO THE POLLS$10,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT: $25k → 11%IN THIS TOGETHER NEPA INC: $20k → 15%WORLD INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY: $10k → 10%UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: $50k → 17%LA BREGA Y FUERZA FUND INC: $10k → 20%LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER: $100k → 21%PRIORITIES USA: $9.9M → 14%EMGAGE FOUNDATION INC: $20k → 16%PROGRESSNOW INC: $10k → 16%FAIR WISCONSIN EDUCATION FUND: $15k → 10%PASTORS UNITED COMMUNITY ADVOCACY INC: $25k → 17%PIZZA TO THE POLLS: $10k → 12%INFORMING DEMOCRACY: $2.0M → 9%EQUITY FOR ALL INC: $20k → 13%NEW GEORGIA PROJECT INC: $10k → 14%ASIAN AMERICAN MIDWEST PROGRESSIVES: $10k → 14%LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER: $50k → 21%PRIORITIES USA: $8.4M → 14%MICHIGAN STUDENT POWER ALLIANCE: $15k → 16%MMAC COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $500k → 17%INFORMING DEMOCRACY: $100k → 9%PRIORITIES USA: $6.0M → 14%BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION: $4.7M → 14%PRIORITIES USA: $3.2M → 14%PRIORITIES USA: $1.6M → 14%PRIORITIES USA: $11.4M → 14%PRIORITIES USA: $4.6M → 14%CENTER FOR ELECTION INNOVATION & RESEARCH: $250k → 14%AMERICA VOTES EDUCATION FUND: $75k → 14%NEW VENTURE FUND: $50k → 14%NEW VENTURE FUND: $50k → 14%NEW VENTURE FUND: $50k → 14%NEW VENTURE FUND: $50k → 14%NEW VENTURE FUND: $50k → 14%NEW VENTURE FUND: $50k → 14%NEW VENTURE FUND: $50k → 14%AMERICA VOTES: $25k → 14%THE MOVEMENT COOPERATIVE: $10k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
WI
MI
NY
OR
PA
CT
CA
AZ
DC
GA
TX
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$47M · 4 repeat orgs$6.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +26% since the first grant, against -8% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
10

Total granted

$47M
$1.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+26%
-8%

Still filing today

100%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.9M went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementEducationReligionPhilanthropyOther
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

  • PU
    PRIORITIES USA
    7× · 2018–2024 · $45M · revenue +44% · 43% of their budget
  • ID
    INFORMING DEMOCRACY
    2× · 2022–2023 · $2.1M · revenue +1%
  • LA
    LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER
    2× · 2019–2021 · $150k · revenue +20%

Funded once

  • MC
    MMAC COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2019 · $500k · revenue -18%
  • THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2021 · $250k · revenue -8%
  • TC
    The Center for Election Innovation & Researchgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $250k · revenue +79%
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
Democracy Works Inc

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

Civil Rights
2
All Americans Vote

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

Civil Rights
3
Fair Democracy

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…

Civil Rights
4
The Equal Voting Rights Institute

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…

Crime & Legal
5
Black Voters Matter Fund Inc

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.

—
6
Guarantee Our Votes Project

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.

Civil Rights
7
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
8
Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote

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…

Civil Rights
9
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
10
Secure Democracy Usa

Secure Democracy USA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to build stronger elections, state by state.

Civil Rights
11
Fair Fight Action Inc

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.

Education
12
Jewish Electorate Institute

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…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fair Wisconsin Education Fund Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

25 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. 25 of the 27 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/25
Grantees still filing
12/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PRIORITIES USA: $45,084,610 · Civil RightsPRIORITIES USA+11 more: $485,000 · Civil RightsBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION: $4,650,000 · OtherBLACK PROGRESS…INFORMING DEMOCRACY: $2,125,000 · OtherINFORMING DEMO…+4 more: $185,000 · OtherMMAC COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOUNDATION INC: $500,000 · Community ImprovementAmerica Votes: $25,000 · Community ImprovementNEW VENTURE FUND: $350,000 · EnvironmentTHE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $250,000 · EducationUNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: $50,000 · EducationEmgage Foundation Inc: $20,000 · Public BenefitLA BREGA Y FUERZA INC: $10,000 · Public BenefitPASTORS UNITED COMMUNITY ADVOCACY INC: $25,000 · ReligionIN THIS TOGETHER NEPA INC: $20,000 · Philanthropy
Civil Rights$45,569,610Other$6,960,000Community Improvement$525,000Environment$350,000Education$300,000Public Benefit$30,000Religion$25,000Philanthropy$20,000

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 budgetPRIORITIES USA: $45,084,610 over 7y, 43% of budgetINFORMING DEMOCRACY: $2,125,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetMMAC COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOUNDATION INC: $500,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $350,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $250,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Center for Election Innovation & Research: $250,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetLAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER: $150,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetAmerica Votes Education Fund: $75,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetUNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUltraViolet Education Fund: $40,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetAmerica Votes: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPASTORS UNITED COMMUNITY ADVOCACY INC: $25,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFuture Georgia Inc DBA Georgia Values Action: $20,000 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetEquity for All Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetIN THIS TOGETHER NEPA INC: $20,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetEmgage Foundation Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetFAIR WISCONSIN EDUCATION FUND INC: $15,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetWORLD INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPizza to the Polls: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetLA BREGA Y FUERZA INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN MIDWEST PROGRESSIVES: $10,000 over 1y, 8.8% of budgetPROGRESS NOW INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNEW GEORGIA PROJECT INC: $10,000 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.

Tides FoundationNew Venture FundAmalgamated Charitabl…Hopewell FundNEO Philanthropy IncSixteen Thirty FundThe Ford FoundationSilicon Valley Commun…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Tides FoundationCA24.5× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get 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 · 0–30%
    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 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.

    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 27 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.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Priorities USA’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