· Public charity
Center for Technology and Civic Life
The center's mission is to increase civic participation by modernizing engagement between local government and the people they serve.
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 108 grants below total $12,154,248 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $13,466,519 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,312,271 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
- Under $10k3 grants · $23k
- $10k–50k76 grants · $1.6M
- $50k–250k25 grants · $1.8M
- $250k+4 grants · $8.8M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| US DIGITAL RESPONSE | $3,700,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT | $3,300,000 |
| THE ELECTIONS GROUP | $958,000 |
| CENTER FOR CIVIC DESIGN | $800,000 |
| ROCK THE VOTE | $200,000 |
| VOTEORG | $200,000 |
| STUDIO DAVID JANKA | $128,000 |
| THOMAS MAIORANAPROTOTYPING SYSTEMS LLC | $100,000 |
| MI FAMILIA VOTA | $100,000 |
| PODER LATINX COLLECTIVE FUND | $100,000 |
| COLORADO COUNTY CLERKS ASSOCIATION | $90,000 |
| FRANKLIN COUNTY CLERK | $50,000 |
| MARQUETTE COUNTY | $50,000 |
| UMATILLA COUNTY | $50,000 |
| COUNTY OF COLUMBIA | $50,000 |
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 79% 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 +53% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
60 repeat relationships — 53 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 55 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, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.3M 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
- DCDEKALB COUNTY GEORGIA2× · 2021–2023 · $12M
- UDUS DIGITAL RESPONSE3× · 2023–2025 · $8.1M · revenue -9% · 30% of their budget
- CCCLARK COUNTY NV ELECTION DEPTARMENT #843× · 2021–2024 · $5.4M
Funded once
- NDNYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONone grant, 2021 · $19M
- DCDALLAS COUNTY ELECTIONSone grant, 2021 · $15M
- FCFULTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSone grant, 2021 · $11M
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.
Strengthen democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in all elections.
The organization is founded for social welfare purposes, including assisting with voter registration and advocating for policies which lead to increased voter registration in the united states.
The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.
CEIR seeks to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation while ensuring election integrity and security.
Voter registration project's purpose is to carry out nonpartisan voter registration programs and assist other nonprofit organizations in planning, implementing and evaluating such programs.
To preserve and protect the sanctity of our vote by promoting commonsense, nonpartisan election security reforms that prevent hacking and fraud without restricting eligible citizens from accessing the polls.
American Redistricting Project is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to strengthen our republic by supporting constitutional redistricting, election transparency, and accountable government through research, education, and…
The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.
ERIC is a membership organization consisting of state election officials working together to improve the accuracy of state voter registration lists and educate eligible citizens on how to register to vote.
To increase participation of eligible young voters in american elections through nonpartisan civic engagement activities
Fairvote action campaigns for better elections for all. we win voting reforms that make democracy more functional and representative for every american.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rock the Vote and the most unlike its peers is North Providence Fop Lodge #13. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 2,000 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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.
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 loosely connected circle, clustered around a few shared anchors.
Open a dossier: Institute for Responsive Government Inc · The Stanton Foundation · The Recycling Partnership Inc · American Kennel Club Companion Animal Recovery Corporation · Project Bread-The Walk for Hunger Inc · National Recreation and Park Association · Amplify Inc · Agespan Inc · Palmettopride the Governor's Council on Beautification & Litter · Our Rescue · National Energy Education Development Project Inc · National Environmental Health Association
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 Center for Technology and Civic Life 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, a single department, or state — 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 Center for Technology and Civic Life?
Find your warmest path to Center for Technology and Civic Life 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.