Skip to content
Promote the Vote Fund Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Promote the Vote Fund Inc

Promote the vote fund will conduct research and educate the public on issues related to expanding the electorate, voting rights, redistricting reform, election protection in michigan, and advocating on behalf of those issues to the extent that no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise…

$619k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$600k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Public Benefit$1.0MCivil Rights$438kCommunity Improvement$225kEnvironment$74kHuman Services$53kPhilanthropy$37kFood & Nutrition$24kEducation$21k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
  • $250k+1 grant · $600k
$600,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN VOICE$600,000
WARRIORS ON WHEELS OF METROPOLITAN$15,000
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 (FY22–24, $53k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%ARAB COMMUNITY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC: $38k → 21%WARRIORS ON WHEELS OF METROPOLITAN: $15k → 21%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.

44%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$799k · 5 repeat orgs$1.0M to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
12

Total granted

$799k
$407k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
+73%

Still filing today

100%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $615k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
Civil RightsCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentHuman ServicesPublic BenefitEducationOther
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

  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $245k · revenue +16% · 97% of their budget
  • AA
    ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN VOTE - MICHIGAN
    2× · 2022–2023 · $206k · revenue +58%
  • MI
    MIIGWECH INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $195k

Funded once

  • NAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $80k · revenue +39%
  • MJ
    MOTHERING JUSTICEgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +129%
  • MU
    MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS
    one grant, 2022 · $44k · revenue -44%
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
Elevated Voices Inc

Voter education around policy

—
2
Equality Michigan Action Network

To provide policy expertise, political acumen, and broad-based relationships across the political spectrum to propel the mission, which is to achieve full equality and respect for all michgan residents, regardless of sexual orientation,…

Civil Rights
3
Action for Liberation

Michigan Liberation is dedicated to the leadership development of community members and creation of effective campaigns to advance racial, gender and economic justice in Michigan

Civil Rights
4
For Michigan

To empower students in Michigan's higher education institutions to take leadership in their community and increase their participation in the democratic process. We strengthen students' voices in developing and advocating for legislation…

Civil Rights
5
Michigan Advocacy Program

To advance the safety, independence, and economic stability of those most affected by poverty, racism, and other structurally oppressive systems by increasing access to justice and working for systemic solutions.

Crime & Legal
6
Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition

Works to end environmental injustice by empowering communities at the grassroots level.the corporation is organzied exclusively for charitable, religious, educational and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the makeing of…

Environment
7
Michigan League of Conservation Voters Inc

A non-partisan political organization that works to elect and hold accountable public officials who will champion a healthy and vital michigan by preserving and protecting our air, land and water.

Environment
8
We the People Mi

To organize, train, and educate communities throughout Michigan to promote racial and economic justice; facilitate relationships between community leaders from rural, suburban, and urban communities across Michigan and strengthen…

Education
9
Progress Michigan Education Inc

Progress Michigan Education is a non-partisan, nonprofit 501(c)3 organization that promotes solutions for michigan through independent research, public education and the use of new media and internet outreach campaigns.

Public Benefit
10
Michigan Energy Options

To guide communities toward being more energy efficient and sustainable through our expertise, our programs, and our effect on decision makers, business leaders, and residents of michigan.

—
11
Elder Law of Michigan

To advocate for, educate, and assist our target populations. our services address the needs of many different people, but we continue to target our services to older adults and persons with disabilities.

Human Services
12
Michigan Civic Action Fund

Promoting community welfare and providing community education in michigan by increasing voter participation through nonpartisan research and voter mobilization; increasing voter awareness of public policy issues through nonpartisan…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan Voices; the most unlike its peers is Warriors On Wheels of Metropolitan Detroit. 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

19 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. 19 of the 21 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
12/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MICHIGAN VOICES: $600,000 · Civil RightsMICHIGAN VOICESASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN VOTE - MICHIGAN: $205,573 · Civil RightsASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN VOTE - MICHIGANCOUNT MI VOTE: $85,411 · Civil RightsCOUNT MI VOTENAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INC: $80,000 · Civil RightsNAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INCMOTHERING JUSTICE: $50,000 · Civil Rights+2 more: $50,400 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN INC: $244,650 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS …THE PROACTIVE PROJECT INC: $68,855 · OtherTHE PROACTIVE PROJECT I…NORTH FLINT NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION COUNCIL INC: $30,000 · OtherNORTH FLINT NEIGHBORHOO…MICHIGAN DISABILITY RIGHTS COALITION: $25,000 · OtherMICHIGAN DISABILITY RIG…SONSHINE PROJECT: $24,300 · OtherSONSHINE PROJECTMIIGWECH INC: $195,000 · Community ImprovementMIIGWECH INCMOSES (METROPOLITAN ORGANIZING STRATEGY ENABLING STRENGTH): $27,400 · Community ImprovementMOSES (METROP…MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS: $43,600 · EnvironmentLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $30,000 · EnvironmentARAB COMMUNITY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND S: $37,880 · Human ServicesWARRIORS ON WHEELS OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $15,000 · Human ServicesTIDES FOUNDATION: $37,000 · PhilanthropyEmgage Foundation Inc: $25,500 · Public Benefit482 FORWARD: $21,000 · Education
Civil Rights$1,071,384Other$392,805Community Improvement$222,400Environment$73,600Human Services$52,880Philanthropy$37,000Public Benefit$25,500Education$21,000

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 budgetMICHIGAN VOICES: $600,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN INC: $244,650 over 2y, 97% of budgetASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN VOTE - MICHIGAN: $205,573 over 2y, 7.7% of budgetMIIGWECH INC: $195,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetCOUNT MI VOTE: $85,411 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetNAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INC: $80,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE PROACTIVE PROJECT INC: $68,855 over 2y, 26% of budgetMOTHERING JUSTICE: $50,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetMICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS: $43,600 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetARAB COMMUNITY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND S: $37,880 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $37,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMOSES (METROPOLITAN ORGANIZING STRATEGY ENABLING STRENGTH): $27,400 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetEQUALITY MICHIGAN: $27,200 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetEmgage Foundation Inc: $25,500 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetMICHIGAN DISABILITY RIGHTS COALITION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetLGBT Detroit: $23,200 over 1y, 2.4% of budget482 FORWARD: $21,000 over 1y, 1.2% 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.

Michigan VoicesTides FoundationNew Venture FundMichigan Civic Educat…State VoicesKalamazoo Community F…Community Foundation …Amalgamated Charitabl…The Ford FoundationMichigan Nonprofit As…NEO Philanthropy IncRockefeller Philanthr…
Michigan VoicesMI30.6× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Michigan Voices · Tides Foundation · New Venture Fund · Michigan Civic Education Fund · State Voices · Kalamazoo Community Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Ford Foundation · Michigan Nonprofit Association · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors 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 Promote the Vote Fund Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Promote the Vote Fund Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%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
    2get no government money at all
    5report 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, FY20–24
    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.

    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 21 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 Promote the Vote’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