Skip to content
State Government Leadership Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$860k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$700k
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$5.7MEducation$865kEmployment$185kCivil Rights$150kCommunity Improvement$75kEnvironment$55k
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
  • $250k+1 grant · $700k
$100,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$534k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BUILDING AMERICA'S FUTURE$700,000
INTEGRITY MINNESOTA$100,000
CENTER FOR CAMPAIGN INNOVATION$25,000
MN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE$25,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%INTEGRITY MINNESOTA: $100k → 11%MINNESOTA JOBS COALITION: $135k → 14%ARKANSAS COMPETES: $30k → 17%AMERICAN COALITION FOR CONSERVATIVE POLICIES: $60k → 14%STANDING STRONG FOR FLORIDA INC: $1.0M → 19%MICHIGAN GUARDIANS FOR DEMOCRACY: $600k → 16%LIBERTY ALLIANCE USA: $600k → 10%LAWYERS FOR DEMOCRACY FUND: $65k → 11%TRAILS WEST INC: $25k → 15%WISCONSIN ALLIANCE FOR REFORM INC: $50k → 10%CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR REFORM: $500k → 8%WESTERN CITIZENS PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION: $75k → 8%OHIOANS FOR A HEALTHY ECONOMY INC: $15k → 15%PROSPERITYALASKAORG DBA ALASKA WINS: $50k → 22%SECURING OHIO'S FUTURE INC: $450k → 9%CONSERVATIVES FOR REDISTRICTING REFORM: $75k → 10%MINNESOTA JOBS COALITION: $50k → 14%ARKANSAS COMPETES: $25k → 17%BUILDING AMERICA'S FUTURE: $700k → 14%MICHIGAN GUARDIANS FOR DEMOCRACY: $490k → 16%CENTER FOR CAMPAIGN INNOVATION: $25k → 9%N2 AMERICA INC: $105k → 14%MICHIGAN MY MICHIGAN: $300k → 16%PENINSULA FUND: $20k → 16%PROTECTING MICHIGAN'S FUTURE FUND: $40k → 16%LET MICHIGAN KIDS LEARN: $475k → 16%LET MICHIGAN KIDS LEARN: $390k → 16%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
MN
WI
MI
OH
CO
MO
VA
AR
NC
DC
GA
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.

29%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 3 repeat orgs$5.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +35% since the first grant, against -33% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
22

Total granted

$2.0M
$4.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
-33%

Still filing today

67%
55%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $850k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
Civil RightsPublic BenefitCrime & LegalEducationEnvironmentOther
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

  • MG
    MICHIGAN GUARDIANS OF DEMOCRACY
    2× · 2021–2022 · $1.1M · 33% of their budget
  • LM
    Let MI Kids Learn
    2× · 2021–2022 · $865k · revenue +299% · 28% of their budget
  • AC
    ARKANSAS COMPETES
    2× · 2019–2020 · $55k · revenue -41% · 81% of their budget

Funded once

  • SS
    STANDING STRONG FOR FLORIDA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $1.0M · revenue +39% · 44% of their budget
  • C1
    CORNERSTONE 1791
    one grant, 2020 · $600k · revenue -38% · 66% of their budget
  • CP
    CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR REFORM INC
    one grant, 2020 · $500k · revenue -67%
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
Michigan Rising Action

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…

—
2
Michigan Conservative Action Policies

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…

—
3
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
4
Minnesota Action Network Inc

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…

Public Benefit
5
American Policy Coalition

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.

Public Benefit
6
State Policy Institute

To promote pro-growth, progressive policy at the state level.

—
7
Prosperity Michigan Inc

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…

—
8
Defend Your Vote

To oppose a Michigan ballot measure

—
9
Michigan Jobs Coalition

To promote job retention and creation in the State of Michigan

—
10
Accountability for Government Fund Inc

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…

—
11
Election Watch Inc

Research analyze publish information to public on elections election systems laws and campaign financing.

Civil Rights
12
Citizen Awareness Project Inc

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…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Securing Ohio's Future Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

27 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. 27 of the 29 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.

6
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/27
Grantees still filing
8/27
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MICHIGAN GUARDIANS OF DEMOCRACY: $1,090,000 · OtherMICHIGAN GUARDIANS OF DEMOCRACYSTANDING STRONG FOR FLORIDA INC: $1,000,000 · OtherSTANDING STRONG FOR FLORIDA INCLet MI Kids Learn: $865,000 · OtherLet MI Kids LearnCORNERSTONE 1791: $600,000 · OtherCORNERSTONE 1791SECURING OHIO'S FUTURE INC: $450,000 · OtherSECURING OHIO'S FUTURE INCMICHIGAN MY MICHIGAN: $300,000 · OtherMICHIGAN MY MICHIGANMICHIGAN FREEDOM FUND: $250,000 · OtherCAROLINA LEADERSHIP COALITION INC: $250,000 · Other+14 more: $785,000 · Other+14 moreBUILDING AMERICA'S FUTURE: $700,000 · Civil RightsBUILDING AME…INTEGRITY MINNESOTA: $100,000 · Civil RightsINTEGRITY MI…CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR REFORM INC: $500,000 · Public Benefit+1 more: $15,000 · Public BenefitCENTER FOR ELECTION CONFIDENCE INC: $65,000 · Crime & LegalARKANSAS COMPETES: $55,000 · EnvironmentWOMEN'S PUBLIC LEADERSHIP NETWORK: $5,000 · Education
Other$5,590,000Civil Rights$800,000Public Benefit$515,000Crime & Legal$65,000Environment$55,000Education$5,000

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 GUARDIANS OF DEMOCRACY: $1,090,000 over 2y, 33% of budgetSTANDING STRONG FOR FLORIDA INC: $1,000,000 over 1y, 44% of budgetLet MI Kids Learn: $865,000 over 2y, 28% of budgetBUILDING AMERICA'S FUTURE: $700,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetCORNERSTONE 1791: $600,000 over 1y, 66% of budgetCAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR REFORM INC: $500,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetMICHIGAN MY MICHIGAN: $300,000 over 1y, 32% of budgetN2 AMERICA INC: $105,000 over 1y, 7.8% of budgetINTEGRITY MINNESOTA: $100,000 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetWESTERN CITIZENS PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION: $75,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetCENTER FOR ELECTION CONFIDENCE INC: $65,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetAmerican Coalition for Conservative Policies: $60,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetARKANSAS COMPETES: $55,000 over 2y, 81% of budgetTHE BETTER HOUR FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetWisconsin Alliance for Reform Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetProtecting Michigans Future Fund: $40,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetCenter for Campaign Innovation: $25,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetMINNESOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetPENINSULA FUND: $20,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetWOMEN'S PUBLIC LEADERSHIP NETWORK: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Pharmaceutical Resear…
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of AmericaDC12.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

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 Government Leadership Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from State Government Leadership Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 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.

    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 29 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 Government Leadership’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