· Public charity
State Government Leadership Foundation
To conduct research and educational programs on public issues for the benefit of the general public, industry, and state government leaders.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
- $250k+1 grant · $700k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BUILDING AMERICA'S FUTURE | $700,000 |
| INTEGRITY MINNESOTA | $100,000 |
| CENTER FOR CAMPAIGN INNOVATION | $25,000 |
| MN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE | $25,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 92% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +35% since the first grant, against -33% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $850k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- MGMICHIGAN GUARDIANS OF DEMOCRACY2× · 2021–2022 · $1.1M · 33% of their budget
- LMLet MI Kids Learn2× · 2021–2022 · $865k · revenue +299% · 28% of their budget
- ACARKANSAS COMPETES2× · 2019–2020 · $55k · revenue -41% · 81% of their budget
Funded once
- SSSTANDING STRONG FOR FLORIDA INCgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $1.0M · revenue +39% · 44% of their budget
- C1CORNERSTONE 1791one grant, 2020 · $600k · revenue -38% · 66% of their budget
- CPCAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR REFORM INCone grant, 2020 · $500k · revenue -67%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Michigan Rising Action 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…
Michigan conservative action policies (mcap) is an organization dedicated to educating michiganders on important policy issues. the organization conducts policy research and public polling in michigan to better understand current opinions…
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.
With a commitment to free market principles, APC focuses on educating the public about conservative fiscal policies that foster job growth, a stronger economy, and increased opportunity for all Americans.
To create, encourage, and promote center right policies based on the principles of freedom, limited government, American exceptionalism, and strong policies in the state of MN, and to engage in any lawful act or activity for which…
To promote pro-growth, progressive policy at the state level.
Prosperity michigan is the nonpartisan voice advocating for economic growth and opportunity for all michiganders, we make a pro-opportunity agenda front and center with elected officials, candidates, and voters by mobilizing citizens as a…
Citizen Awareness Project exists to educate citizens and public officials on issues of public policy and to give them the tools necessary to make a difference in their community on issues affecting the public at large. Specifically, it…
To promote job retention and creation in the State of Michigan
To operate exclusively for the promotion of civic action and social welfare by promoting the common good and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the State of Michigan; to support public policies on the Federal State and…
Research analyze publish information to public on elections election systems laws and campaign financing.
To oppose a Michigan ballot measure
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Securing Ohio's Future Inc and the most unlike its peers is Alaska Wins. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
27 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 27 of the 29 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds MICHIGAN GUARDIANS OF DEMOCRACY ↗
- Who funds STANDING STRONG FOR FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds Let MI Kids Learn ↗
- Who funds BUILDING AMERICA'S FUTURE ↗
- Who funds CORNERSTONE 1791 ↗
- Who funds CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR REFORM INC ↗
- Who funds SECURING OHIO'S FUTURE INC ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN MY MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN FREEDOM FUND ↗
- Who funds CAROLINA LEADERSHIP COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA JOBS COALITION ↗
- Who funds N2 AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds INTEGRITY MINNESOTA ↗
- Who funds WESTERN CITIZENS PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR ELECTION CONFIDENCE INC ↗
- Who funds American Coalition for Conservative Policies ↗
- Who funds ARKANSAS COMPETES ↗
- Who funds Alaska Wins ↗
- Who funds THE BETTER HOUR FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Wisconsin Alliance for Reform Inc ↗
- Who funds Protecting Michigans Future Fund ↗
- Who funds TRAILS WEST INC ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY ↗
- Who funds Center for Campaign Innovation ↗
- Who funds PENINSULA FUND ↗
- Who funds OHIOANS FOR A HEALTHY ECONOMY INC ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S PUBLIC LEADERSHIP NETWORK ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization State Government Leadership Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to State Government Leadership Foundation?
Find your warmest path to State Government Leadership 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.