· Public charity
Strategic Victory Fund
Promote social welfare within various states.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 34 grants below total $26,001,468 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $32,658,968 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $6,657,500 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k3 grants · $117k
- $50k–250k14 grants · $1.6M
- $250k+17 grants · $24M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| A BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER | $3,712,500 |
| PROGRESS NOW | $3,396,000 |
| TOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS | $2,714,000 |
| PA ALLIANCE ACTION | $2,248,000 |
| MICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION | $2,070,000 |
| MAKE NORTH CAROLINA FIRST | $1,965,000 |
| PROGRESS NC ACTION | $1,155,000 |
| PROJECT 72 WI INC | $1,064,900 |
| RALLY NC | $1,005,000 |
| PROGRESS MICHIGAN | $970,000 |
| PROJECT 26 PENNSYLVANIA | $940,000 |
| WIN MINNESOTA | $900,000 |
| THE WISCO PROJECT INC | $792,000 |
| CONGRESSIONAL INTEGRITY PROJECT | $450,000 |
| BATTLE BORN PROGRESS | $385,500 |
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 (FY21–25, $2.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 85% 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.
34 repeat relationships — 25 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 92% 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
- PNPROGRESS NOW INC4× · 2020–2025 · $15M · revenue +185% · 80% of their budget
- TWTOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INC6× · 2020–2025 · $13M · revenue +511% · 34% of their budget
- PAPA ALLIANCE ACTION5× · 2020–2025 · $11M · revenue +98% · 72% of their budget
Funded once
- SVSTATE VICTORY ACTIONone grant, 2022 · $4.0M
- SVSTRATEGIC VICTORY FUND IE PAC2× · 2020–2024 · $3.5M
- SVSTATE VICTORY ACTIONone grant, 2022 · $3.0M
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.
Wisconsin progress recruits, trains, elects, and develops progressive candidates and leaders at the local and state legislative levels.
Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay
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…
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…
Organize general election presidential and vice-presidential debates
The organization's mission is to promote the common good and general welfare by supporting direct democracy efforts, which give the public a direct voice in the operation of state and local government through the approval or defeat of…
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…
To educate the public regarding its proposal to implement a Nationwide Popular Vote Election of the President of the United States
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 promote citizen engagement in the formation of public policy
Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories through participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building.
The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wisconsin Opportunity Coalition Inc and the most unlike its peers is Colorado Civic Education. 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 12 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
92 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. 92 of the 112 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 PROGRESS NOW INC ↗
- Who funds TOGETHER WISCONSIN ACTS INC ↗
- Who funds A BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC ↗
- Who funds PA ALLIANCE ACTION ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds Progress Michigan Inc ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS NORTH CAROLINA ACTION ↗
- Who funds Make North Carolina First ↗
- Who funds WIN MINNESOTA ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS NOW EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds COMMONWEALTH COMMUNICATIONS ↗
- Who funds TOGETHER WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds Rally NC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds BATTLE BORN PROGRESS ↗
- Who funds LIBERTY GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds Alliance for a Better Minnesota ↗
- Who funds PROJECT 26 PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds PA Alliance Foundation ↗
- Who funds NEVADA ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds THE PEOPLE OVER PROFITS FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN CIVIC EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds PROJECT 72 WI INC ↗
- Who funds WISCO PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds A BETTER BIG SKY ↗
- Who funds AMERICA'S VOICE ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS NORTH CAROLINA ↗
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: Sixteen Thirty Fund · America Votes · North Fund · State Engagement Fund · Hopewell Fund · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Tides Advocacy · Tides Foundation · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees · State Leadership Project · National Education Association of the United States
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 Strategic Victory Fund 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 Strategic Victory Fund?
Find your warmest path to Strategic Victory 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.