Skip to content
State Democracy Action Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

State Democracy Action Fund

Provide the education and skills needed to connect everyday people with their state government and work to help state governments represent the diverse population of their communities and advance policies that promote inclusion, equality, and opportunity for all.

$1.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$650k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Public Benefit$4.9MCommunity Improvement$450kCivil Rights$400kHuman Services$120kHealth$100kEducation$63kCrime & Legal$50kPhilanthropy$50kOther$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k6 grants · $525k
  • $250k+1 grant · $650k
$100,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$679k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LEGISLATIVE MAJORITY PAC$650,000
KANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE$150,000
TOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS$100,000
FORWARD ACTION FUND$100,000
SAVE MAINE ABSENTEE VOTING$75,000
MAJORITY RISING NC$50,000
603 FORWARD FUND$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 (FY21–21, $70k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND: $50k → 14%NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE: $20k → 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

AK
ME
NH
MN
WI
MI
NY
OR
NV
CO
VA
MD
AZ
KS
NC
DC
OK
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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.1M · 5 repeat orgs$2.2M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +198% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
26

Total granted

$4.1M
$1.9M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+198%
+8%

Still filing today

60%
69%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $275k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Civil RightsCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationHealthPublic BenefitOther
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

  • DL
    DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
    3× · 2020–2023 · $2.5M
  • LM
    LEGISLATIVE MAJORITY PAC
    2× · 2022–2025 · $950k
  • KV
    KANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE
    2× · 2021–2025 · $410k · revenue +426% · 56% of their budget

Funded once

  • VP
    VOTING PROJECTgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $350k · revenue +29%
  • VP
    virginia plus PAC
    one grant, 2022 · $325k
  • AL
    AMERICAN LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE
    one grant, 2021 · $200k
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
Oklahoma Forward Inc

Oklahoma Forward works to identify what everyday Oklahomans care about, and help to give them a stronger voice in state government. By creating an environment where Oklahoma voters feel empowered, we can encourage a positive conversation…

—
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
Tennessee Progress

Tennessee progress works to uplift the values and voices of the progressive movement across tennessee by elevating the issues that matter most to our communities. tennessee progress is a digital and communications hub for the progressive…

—
5
Arizona Prosperity Alliance

The organization engaged in public policy advocacy, survey work, and voter education, and in the past has also provided grants to non-profit organizations with complementary missions.

—
6
Upstate Action Alliance

Non-PartisanVoter Educ Advocacy

Civil Rights
7
Progress Arizona

Progress arizona is an arizona nonprofit corporation located in phoenix, arizona. progress arizona is an organization founded in 2018 to educate the public about key policy issues using digital organizing and communications.

Civil Rights
8
Minnesota Voice

Minnesota Voice is a collaboration of organizations working toward permanent change in social, racial, and economic justice by increasing civic engagement and voter participation across the state.

Public Benefit
9
Protect Colorados Vote

To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact

—
10
Colorado Rising State Action

The organization is focused on holding special interest networks accountable and advancing conservative principles. We're fighting for limited government, lowering taxes, fighting government over-regulation that stifles freedom, free…

—
11
Colorado People's Action

Colorado people's action (cpa) is a member-driven, racial justice organization dedicated to winning long-lasting progressive public policies in colorado. cpa builds power by mobilizing voters, electing our own people to office, holding…

—
12
Progressnow New Mexico

Progressnow new mexico is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots communications and advocacy organization working to unite, empower, and enhance the progressive voice in the land of enchantment.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is A Better Wisconsin Together Inc; the most unlike its peers is Education Now. 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 35 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)
23/25
Grantees still filing
14/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: $2,454,090 · OtherDEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEELEGISLATIVE MAJORITY PAC: $950,000 · OtherLEGISLATIVE MAJORITY PACVOTING PROJECT: $350,000 · OtherVOTING PROJECTvirginia plus PAC: $325,000 · Othervirginia plus PACAMERICAN LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE: $200,000 · Other+13 more: $720,500 · Other+13 moreFORWARD ACTION FUND: $190,000 · Civil RightsFORWARD AC…A BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC: $100,000 · Civil RightsA BETTER W…MICHIGAN CIVIC EDUCATION FUND: $100,000 · Civil RightsMICHIGAN C…THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $100,000 · Civil RightsTHE VOTER …ASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $25,000 · Civil RightsOPPORTUNITY ARIZONA: $25,000 · Civil RightsOKLAHOMA GROWTH ALLIANCE INC: $20,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE: $20,000 · Civil RightsKANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE: $410,000 · Community ImprovementMAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE: $25,000 · Community ImprovementAlliance for a Better Minnesota: $25,000 · Community Improvement+1 more: $15,000 · Community ImprovementTOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INC: $100,000 · HealthGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $50,000 · Human ServicesNATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesMajority Rising NC: $50,000 · Public BenefitFAIR FIGHT ACTION INC: $30,000 · Education
Other$4,999,590Civil Rights$580,000Community Improvement$475,000Health$100,000Human Services$70,000Public Benefit$50,000Education$30,000

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 budgetKANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE: $410,000 over 2y, 56% of budgetFORWARD ACTION FUND: $190,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetA BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC: $100,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetNEVADA ALLIANCE: $100,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetMICHIGAN CIVIC EDUCATION FUND: $100,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $100,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCOLORADO VALUES PROJECT: $95,000 over 2y, 21% of budgetGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetEducation Now: $32,500 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetFAIR FIGHT ACTION INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $25,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetAMPLIFY NEW HAMPSHIRE: $25,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetAlliance for a Better Minnesota: $25,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budget603 FORWARD: $25,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetOPPORTUNITY ARIZONA: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetOKLAHOMA GROWTH ALLIANCE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 72% of budgetNATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAlaska Progressive Donor Table: $15,000 over 1y, 2.9% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundAmerica VotesStrategic Victory FundNorth FundTides FoundationHopewell FundOpen Society Action F…State Engagement FundWomen Donors Network …All Hands on Deck Net…Tides AdvocacyNew Venture Fund
Sixteen Thirty FundDC40.9× affinity18 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · America Votes · Strategic Victory Fund · North Fund · Tides Foundation · Hopewell Fund · Open Society Action Fund Inc · State Engagement Fund · Women Donors Network Action · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Advocacy · New Venture 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 State Democracy Action Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from State Democracy Action Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to State Democracy Action Fund?

    Find your warmest path to State Democracy Action 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 35 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on State Democracy Action’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