· Public charity
State Leadership Project
STATE LEADERSHIP PROJECT (slp) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that strengthens civic infrastructure by supporting the charitable efforts of state-based donor alliances and funder communities.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
- $50k–250k30 grants · $2.4M
- $250k+2 grants · $8.9M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| STRATEGIC VICTORY FUND | $7,367,765 |
| GOODNATION FOUNDATION | $1,500,000 |
| THE LOCAL NEWS HUB | $141,000 |
| ALLIANCE FOR A BETTER IOWA | $125,000 |
| UTAH DONOR COLLABORATIVE | $125,000 |
| THE ALABAMA ALLIANCE NETWORK | $125,000 |
| OKLAHOMA DONOR ALLIANCE INC | $125,000 |
| NEO PHILANTHROPY | $125,000 |
| ARKANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE INC | $125,000 |
| WYOMING DONOR ALLIANCE | $100,000 |
| PHILANTHROPY PATHWAYS INC | $100,000 |
| MISSOURI WIN | $75,000 |
| TENNESSEE INVESTOR FUND | $75,000 |
| TIDES CENTER | $75,000 |
| MAINE DONOR ALLIANCE FUND | $75,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY19–24, $1.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 97% of those 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 +45% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
33 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 9 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, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.2M 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
- GAGEORGIA ALLIANCE EDUCATION FUND INC3× · 2020–2024 · $488k · revenue +911% · 42% of their budget
- FIFaith in Indiana2× · 2021–2022 · $420k · revenue +44%
IMAGINE NORTH CAROLINA FIRST4× · 2019–2024 · $360k · revenue +258%
Funded once
- P6PROJECT 68 EDUCATION FUND INCone grant, 2020 · $1.0M · revenue -29% · 98% of their budget
- NDNEW DAY NEVADA2× · 2022–2023 · $200k · revenue -75%
- NSNORTH STAR PROSPERITYone grant, 2022 · $200k · revenue -100%
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.
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.
Bold Impact is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting a democracy where all communities get to thrive.
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.
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…
Team Democracy Action (TDA) promotes social welfare by bringing together Americans of all political perspectives around our shared commitment to the core principles of our constitutional democracy.
Democracy North Carolina's mission is to strengthen democratic structures, build power among disenfranchised communities, and inspire confidence in a transformed political process that works for all.
Keystone Democracy's goal is to ensure that all Pennsylvania elections are implemented in a safe, secure, convenient and fair manner. We work to advance pro-democracy policies by informing elected officials, civic leaders, the media, and…
One for democracy unlocks resources to build a healthy democracy by fostering meaningful relationships between philanthropists and the democracy leaders of our time.
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…
A nonpartisan grassroots communication organization that works to raise awareness and increase engagement around community issues in alabama by working directly with civic organizations advocating civic participation in communities across…
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…
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Arkansas Values Inc and 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.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 9 years old; the field is 12. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 21% of your grantees by number, and just 29% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
78 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.
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 STRATEGIC VICTORY FUND ↗
- Who funds Goodnation Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds PROJECT 68 EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA ALLIANCE EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Faith in Indiana ↗
- Who funds IMAGINE NORTH CAROLINA FIRST ↗
- Who funds ARKANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds CIVIC TN ↗
- Who funds ALABAMA ALLIANCE NETWORK ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds COLORADO DEMOCRACY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds WIN MINNESOTA ↗
- Who funds NEW DAY NEVADA ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN CIVIC EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds NORTH STAR PROSPERITY ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM VIRGINIA INC ↗
- Who funds For West Virginia's Future Inc ↗
- Who funds ARKANSAS VALUES INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR A BETTER IOWA ↗
- Who funds OKLAHOMA DONOR ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds Utah Donor Collaborative ↗
- Who funds MAINE PEOPLE'S RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds BLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA ↗
- Who funds NEVADA ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PA ALLIANCE ACTION ↗
- Who funds Washington Progress Fund ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI WIN ↗
- Who funds LEXINGTON OBSERVER INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR A BETTER NORTH DAKOTA ↗
- Who funds Ohio Progressive Collaborative Education Fund ↗
- Who funds A BETTER BIG SKY ↗
- Who funds INDIANA PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds TENNESSEE INVESTOR FUND ↗
- Who funds FLORIDA ALLIANCE FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds NEW HAMPSHIRE PROGRESS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PHILANTHROPY PATHWAYS INC ↗
- Who funds COMMITTEE ON STATES ↗
- Who funds KENTUCKY CIVIC ENGAGEMENT TABLE INC ↗
- Who funds WYOMING DONOR ALLIANCE ↗
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Committee on States · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Tides Foundation · State Engagement Fund · Strategic Victory Fund · New Venture Fund · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Hopewell Fund · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Advocacy · Way to Win Action Fund Inc
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 Leadership Project 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 Leadership Project?
Find your warmest path to State Leadership Project 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.