Skip to content
Public Wise Research and Education Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Public Wise Research and Education Fund

The organization conducts nonpartisan, nonprofit, polling and research to fill the gaps in voter and voting rights research to complement ongoing studies being conducted by others in the field.

$341k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
7
States reached
$50k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Public Benefit$1.4MCivil Rights$300kPhilanthropy$200kEducation$100kReligion$23kArts & Culture$12k
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $315,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $341,024 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $26,024 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 · FY2024

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $165k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $150k
$25,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$526k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM$50,000
DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA$50,000
FAIR COUNT ATLANTA$50,000
Generation Vote Education Fund$30,000
DRAG OUT THE VOTE$25,000
AMERICAN OVERSIGHT INC$25,000
NORTH CAROLINA BLACK ALLIANCE INC$25,000
ARIZONA NATIVE VOTE$25,000
Repairers of the Breach$23,000
BLACK WALL USA INC$12,000
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 (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 87% 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 DEMOCRACY RESOURCE CENTER: $100k → 11%UP TO US INC: $50k → 11%BLACK WALL USA INC: $12k → 7%PENNSYLVANIA VOICE: $75k → 22%VOTE ORG: $25k → 10%VOTERIDERS: $25k → 14%Generation Vote Education Fund: $30k → 13%DRAG OUT THE VOTE: $25k → 17%AMERICAN OVERSIGHT INC: $75k → 14%DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA: $75k → 8%Repairers of the Breach: $23k → 18%FAIR COUNT ATLANTA: $50k → 14%NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM: $75k → 14%CIVIC NATION: $100k → 7%NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANC: $25k → 19%ARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT: $75k → 11%HEADCOUNT INC: $100k → 17%AMERICAN OVERSIGHT INC: $75k → 14%DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA: $50k → 8%FAIR COUNT ATLANTA: $50k → 14%NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM: $75k → 14%PODER IN ACTION: $50k → 11%THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE NEW YORK: $50k → 17%AMERICAN OVERSIGHT INC: $25k → 14%FAIR COUNT: $25k → 14%NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM: $50k → 14%GENERATION CITIZEN INC: $25k → 17%FAIR ELECTIONS CENTER: $100k → 14%NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: $10k → 17%APIAVOTE: $75k → 14%DEMOS A NETWORK FOR IDEAS AND ACTION: $75k → 17%HOPEWELL FUND: $200k → 14%VOTER FORMATION PROJECT: $50k → 14%FAIR ELECTIONS CENTER: $50k → 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
NY
MA
PA
CA
VA
MD
AZ
NC
DC
GA
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.

52%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$940k · 7 repeat orgs$875k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +24% since the first grant, against +11% for those funded once.

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

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
13

Total granted

$940k
$760k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+11%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $115k 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 RightsEducationPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementReligionOther
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

  • NA
    NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM
    3× · 2022–2024 · $200k · revenue +33%
  • FE
    Fair Elections Center
    2× · 2022–2023 · $150k · revenue +24%
  • FC
    FAIR COUNT INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $125k · revenue +145%

Funded once

  • AA
    ADRC ACTION
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue -95%
  • HC
    HEAD COUNT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue +249%
  • Civic Nationgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue +34%
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
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
4
Voteamerica

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

Civil Rights
5
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
6
Register America

The organization is founded for social welfare purposes, including assisting with voter registration and advocating for policies which lead to increased voter registration in the united states.

—
7
Send the Vote Inc

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

—
8
Nonprofit Vote Inc

Nonprofit VOTE equips our nation's nonprofits with nonpartisan tools and resources to help the communities they serve to participate in voting and democracy. Nonprofit VOTE manages National Voter Registration Day.

Civil Rights
9
The Center for Election Innovation & Research

CEIR seeks to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation while ensuring election integrity and security.

Civil Rights
10
Commission On Presidential Debates

Organize general election presidential and vice-presidential debates

Civil Rights
11
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
12
Bold Impact

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

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; the most unlike its peers is New York University. 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
13/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM: $200,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUMAMERICAN OVERSIGHT INC: $175,000 · Civil RightsAMERICAN OVERSIGHT INCFair Elections Center: $150,000 · Civil RightsFair Elections CenterAsian & Pacific Islander American Vote: $125,000 · Civil RightsAsian & Pacific Islander American VoteDemocracy North Carolina: $125,000 · Civil RightsDemocracy North CarolinaADRC ACTION: $100,000 · Civil RightsADRC ACTIONHEAD COUNT INC: $100,000 · Civil RightsHEAD COUNT INCPENNSYLVANIA VOICE: $75,000 · Civil RightsPENNSYLVANIA VOICEARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT: $75,000 · Civil RightsARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENTUP TO US INC: $50,000 · Civil Rights+5 more: $125,000 · Civil Rights+5 moreHOPEWELL FUND: $200,000 · PhilanthropyHOPEWELL FU…Civic Nation: $100,000 · EducationCivic Natio…WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC: $50,000 · EducationWILLIAM J B…NORTH CAROLINA BLACK ALLIANCE INC: $40,000 · EducationNORTH CAROL…New York University: $10,000 · EducationFAIR COUNT INC: $125,000 · Community ImprovementDEMOS A NETWORK FOR IDEAS AND ACTION LTD: $75,000 · Public BenefitPoder in Action: $50,000 · Public BenefitGENERATION VOTE ACTION: $30,000 · OtherBlack Wall USA: $12,000 · OtherGENERATION CITIZEN INC: $25,000 · Youth DevelopmentRepairers of the Breach: $23,000 · Religion
Civil Rights$1,300,000Philanthropy$200,000Education$200,000Community Improvement$125,000Public Benefit$125,000Other$42,000Youth Development$25,000Religion$23,000

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 budgetNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM: $200,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetHOPEWELL FUND: $200,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN OVERSIGHT INC: $175,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetFair Elections Center: $150,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetFAIR COUNT INC: $125,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetAsian & Pacific Islander American Vote: $125,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetDemocracy North Carolina: $125,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetADRC ACTION: $100,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetHEAD COUNT INC: $100,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetCivic Nation: $100,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA VOICE: $75,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT: $75,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetDEMOS A NETWORK FOR IDEAS AND ACTION LTD: $75,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetWILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUP TO US INC: $50,000 over 1y, 35% of budgetPoder in Action: $50,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA BLACK ALLIANCE INC: $40,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetArizona Native Vote: $25,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetDrag Out the Vote: $25,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetGENERATION CITIZEN INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetVOTERIDERS: $25,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetVOTEORG: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetNAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRepairers of the Breach: $23,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetNew York University: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Silicon Valley Commun…New Venture FundRockefeller Family Fu…Hopewell FundNEO Philanthropy IncImpactassetsincTides FoundationAmalgamated Charitabl…Public Wise IncFoundation to Promote…The Overbrook Foundat…All Hands on Deck Net…
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA20.8× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · New Venture Fund · Rockefeller Family Fund Inc · Hopewell Fund · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Impactassetsinc · Tides Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Public Wise Inc · Foundation to Promote Open Society · The Overbrook Foundation · All Hands on Deck Network 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 Public Wise Research and Education Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Public Wise Research and Education Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–10%
    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 Public Wise Research and Education Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Public Wise Research and Education Fund 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 Public Wise Research and Education’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