· Private foundation
The Enfranchisement Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k5 grants · $5k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $150k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $297k
- $250k+1 grant · $329k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE PHILANTHROPIC COLLABORATIVE FOR EDUCATION | $328,987 |
| ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENT EDUCATION | $196,580 |
| LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND | $50,000 |
| REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| MEDSTAR GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL | $40,000 |
| UNESCO | $25,000 |
| CHOOSE CHICAGO FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| THE JEWISH ELECTORAL INSTITUTE | $25,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON | $25,000 |
| MOBILES FOR EDUCATION ALLIANCE | $10,000 |
| WASHINGTON HEBREW CONGREGATION | $1,800 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,300 |
| CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN | $1,000 |
| WETA | $1,000 |
| OCEAN CONSERVANCY | $18 |
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% 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 +28% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
21 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 5 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, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $357k 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
- RIRESOURCE IMPACT2× · 2021–2022 · $439k · revenue +121%
- LOLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND5× · 2021–2025 · $235k · revenue +39%
- RFREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION6× · 2017–2025 · $230k · revenue +496%
Funded once
- PPPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF METRO WASHINGTON DCone grant, 2017 · $155k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $100k
Cornell Universityone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +15%
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 mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…
Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Competitive enterprise institute (cei) is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. we believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being…
Making our government work better is a daunting task, and we are a small organization seeking to transform a government that employs millions of civilians and manages trillions of dollars in taxpayer revenue needed to protect public…
Founded in 1889, the national association of regulatory utility commisioners (naruc) is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the state public service commisions who regulate the utilities that provide essential services such…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Grantmakers for Education and the most unlike its peers is Citizens Association of Georgetown. 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 41 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
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 44 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 ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENT EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION SUPPORT FUND ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE IMPACT ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON DC INC ↗
- Who funds JEWISH ELECTORATE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE MEDSTAR-GEORGETOWN MEDICAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds Cornell University ↗
- Who funds CHOOSE CHICAGO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds MOBILES FOR EDUCATION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds MASONIC MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY ↗
- Who funds Ohio Progressive Collaborative ↗
- Who funds CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER WASHINGTON EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Citizens Association of Georgetown ↗
- Who funds GRANTMAKERS FOR EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds THE SCHOTT FOUNDATION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds THE SHAKESPEARE THEATRE ↗
- Who funds Jewish Women International ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
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: Caroline & Sigmund Schott Fund · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · WK Kellogg Foundation · The Ford Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 The Enfranchisement 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 The Enfranchisement Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Enfranchisement 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.