Skip to content
State Engagement Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

State Engagement Fund

The STATE ENGAGEMENT FUND utilizes public policy research, grassroots organizing and communications strategies in combination to facilitate alignment among organizations so they work together in the areas of health care, public education, equality, environment and poverty.

$19M
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$18M
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$62MPhilanthropy$33MHuman Services$7.3MCivil Rights$7.1MEnvironment$865kCommunity Improvement$614kScience & Tech$500kPublic Safety & Disaster$307kOther$0
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$18,100,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
STRATEGIC VICTORY FUND$18,100,000
DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE$1,288,913
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 (FY17–21, $2.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 97% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $505k → 11%CHINESE PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL ACTION FUND INC: $45k → 16%FORWARD TOGETHER ACTION: $10k → 10%NCAAT IN ACTION: $62k → 8%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND INC: $1.1M → 14%CASA IN ACTION PAC: $40k → 11%LUCHA: $269k → 11%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND INC: $50k → 14%NEW YORK STATE IMMIGRANT ACTION FUND: $75k → 17%NEW YORK STATE IMMIGRANT ACTION FUND: $25k → 17%INSTITUTO LAB: $56k → 11%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
WA
ID
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
OH
PA
CA
UT
CO
MO
KY
VA
MD
AZ
NM
AR
TN
NC
DC
AL
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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$84M · 46 repeat orgs$27M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +71% since the first grant, against +50% for those funded once.

46 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 45 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

46
72

Total granted

$84M
$25M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+71%
+50%

Still filing today

74%
76%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.3M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsPublic BenefitHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementEducationInternationalOther
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

  • FO
    FOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUND
    2× · 2018–2019 · $14M · revenue +86% · 26% of their budget
  • WM
    WIN MINNESOTA
    3× · 2017–2020 · $4.9M · revenue +123% · 64% of their budget
  • AV
    America Votes
    3× · 2017–2019 · $2.4M · revenue +495%

Funded once

  • WA
    WE AMERICANS CAN FUND
    one grant, 2020 · $4.2M
  • JF
    JUSTICE FOR NCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $3.9M · revenue +27%
  • MC
    MICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $3.5M · revenue +260% · 87% of their budget
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
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…

—
2
Bold Impact

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

Arts & Culture
3
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
4
Six Action

Six action realizes a bold policy agenda that secures and sustains meaningful racial, gender, social and economic justice outcomes that center the people most impacted by systemic and structural oppression. we support values-aligned state…

Civil Rights
5
Fund for Justice

Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…

Crime & Legal
6
Powerswitch Action

Powerswitch action is a national network forging collective democracy and economies in our cities and states, together with our 21 grassroots affiliates.

Community Improvement
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
Organize for Justice

Organize for justice develops diverse campaign leadership by passing on innovations and relationships from one generation of organizers to the next. the organization strives to create public support on issues affecting working americans.

—
9
Power Coalition for Electoral Justice

We created the power coalition for electoral justice with our partners because this is a moment of opportunity; a time to dig in and become internationally strategic; in short, to use this movement to create a true paradigm shift. to plant…

Civil Rights
10
The Alliance for Collective Action

The Alliance for Collective Action convenes leaders of environmental and social movements to advance solutions for a thriving planet. We advance our mission through the Alliance Center building and community, as well as through Collective…

Environment
11
New Jersey Citizen Action

To protect and expand the rights of citizens of the state of new jersey, and encourage active citizen involvement in campaigns promoting economic, social and racial equity.

—
12
Network for Civic Action

Network for civic action advocates for the protection of democracy and encourages civic engagement. it evaluates programs and educates donors about how their donations can best serve those goals.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Community Change Action; the most unlike its peers is Instituto Lab. 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

100 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. 100 of the 121 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.

16
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
49
Early backer (in before they grew)
91/100
Grantees still filing
64/100
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

STRATEGIC VICTORY FUND: $39,858,529 · OtherSTRATEGIC VICTORY FUNDFOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUND: $14,106,000 · OtherFOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUNDSTATE VICTORY ACTION: $6,150,000 · OtherSTATE VICTORY ACTIONWE AMERICANS CAN FUND: $4,150,000 · Other+49 more: $17,323,494 · Other+49 moreMICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUND: $3,500,000 · Civil RightsMICHIGAN CI…PA ALLIANCE ACTION: $1,125,000 · Civil RightsPA ALLIANCE…NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE: $1,020,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL AS…PROGRESS NOW INC: $937,500 · Civil RightsPROGRESS NO…FLORIDA RISING INC: $855,000 · Civil RightsFLORIDA RIS…LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $500,000 · Civil RightsASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $450,000 · Civil Rights+26 more: $3,504,203 · Civil Rights+26 moreWIN MINNESOTA: $4,865,000 · Public BenefitPROGRESS NORTH CAROLINA ACTION: $455,000 · Public BenefitProgress Michigan Inc: $442,000 · Public BenefitProgress Michigan Education Inc: $304,000 · Public BenefitMICHIGAN ORGANIZING STRATEGY ENABLING STRENGTH ACTION: $285,000 · Public BenefitCENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION: $274,000 · Public BenefitInstituto Power: $265,000 · Public Benefit+6 more: $529,333 · Public BenefitJUSTICE FOR NC: $3,942,000 · EducationCENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY ACTION FUND INC: $265,000 · EducationAmerica Votes: $2,379,000 · Community ImprovementWORKER POWER: $201,000 · Community ImprovementMAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE: $151,000 · Community ImprovementPOWER INTERFAITH INC: $150,000 · Community Improvement+5 more: $272,148 · Community ImprovementSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $2,359,051 · EnvironmentGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $1,100,000 · Human ServicesLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $774,000 · Human ServicesNEW YORK STATE IMMIGRANT ACTION FUND INCORPORATED: $100,000 · Human Services+7 more: $263,000 · Human Services
Other$81,588,023Civil Rights$11,891,703Public Benefit$7,419,333Education$4,207,000Community Improvement$3,153,148Environment$2,359,051Human Services$2,237,000

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 budgetSTRATEGIC VICTORY FUND: $39,858,529 over 6y, 32% of budgetFOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUND: $14,106,000 over 2y, 26% of budgetWIN MINNESOTA: $4,865,000 over 3y, 64% of budgetMICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUND: $3,500,000 over 1y, 87% of budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $2,359,051 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetTOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INC: $1,748,000 over 4y, 48% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $1,364,500 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetPA ALLIANCE ACTION: $1,125,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $1,100,000 over 2y, 72% of budgetNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE: $1,020,000 over 2y, 9.6% of budgetPROGRESS NOW INC: $937,500 over 1y, 22% of budgetFLORIDA RISING INC: $855,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $774,000 over 2y, 8.2% of budgetFLORIDIANS FOR TAX FAIRNESS: $650,000 over 1y, 37% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $500,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetPROGRESS NORTH CAROLINA ACTION: $455,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $450,000 over 2y, 53% of budgetProgress Michigan Inc: $442,000 over 1y, 7.3% of budgetOhio Progressive Collaborative: $425,000 over 2y, 21% of budgetFLIC VOTES INC: $386,000 over 3y, 11% of budgetORGANIZE NOW INC DBA ORGANIZE FLORIDA INC: $364,100 over 3y, 6.6% of budgetONE APIA NEVADA: $361,800 over 2y, 37% of budgetMichigan Peoples Campaign: $355,000 over 3y, 31% of budgetACTION FOR LIBERATION: $337,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetPROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP ALLIANCE OF NEVADA ACTION: $328,000 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetCOMMITTEE ON STATES: $318,703 over 1y, 18% of budgetProgress Michigan Education Inc: $304,000 over 3y, 30% of budgetCOMMONWEALTH COMMUNICATIONS: $300,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetCENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION: $274,000 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetInstituto Power: $265,000 over 2y, 20% of budgetCENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY ACTION FUND INC: $265,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetNEW VIRGINIA MAJORITY: $260,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetFloridians for a Fair Democracy Inc: $250,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetCIRC ACTION FUND: $242,000 over 3y, 19% of budgetWORKER POWER: $201,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetMOTHERING JUSTICE: $171,000 over 2y, 38% of budgetOUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA: $169,000 over 2y, 4.4% of budgetMAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE: $151,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetNEW HAMPSHIRE PROGRESS ALLIANCE: $137,500 over 1y, 13% of budgetMOTHERING JUSTICE ACTION FUND: $125,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetFreedom Action Now: $125,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetCENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC: $105,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES: $100,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetTIRRC VOTES: $100,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetJust Strategy: $100,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetAPANO: $100,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetNORTH DAKOTA NATIVE VOTE: $100,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetHIGH GROUND ACTION FUND: $100,000 over 1y, 3.1% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundAll Hands on Deck Net…Tides AdvocacyAmerica VotesWay to Win Action Fun…Open Society Action F…Women Donors Network …NEO Philanthropy Acti…North FundPro-Democracy CampaignAmerican Federation o…Strategic Victory Fund
Sixteen Thirty FundDC109.9× affinity60 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Advocacy · America Votes · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Women Donors Network Action · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · North Fund · Pro-Democracy Campaign · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees · Strategic Victory 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 Engagement Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from State Engagement Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 80%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    8get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 Engagement Fund?

    Find your warmest path to State Engagement 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 121 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 State Engagement’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