Skip to content
The Fairness Project at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Fairness Project

Promoting general social welfare of the community through the use of, and education around, ballot measures advancing economic and social equity.

$27M
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
7
States reached
$16M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Civil Rights$28MHealth$8.9MEmployment$2.5MPublic Benefit$2.3MHuman Services$2.1MCrime & Legal$1.1MEnvironment$1.1MPhilanthropy$235kOther$0
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $225k
  • $250k+8 grants · $27M
$935,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$4.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM INC$16,400,000
MISSOURIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM$4,450,000
NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM$1,500,000
BETTER JOBS FOR ALASKA INC$1,430,000
MONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS$1,250,000
ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS$935,000
NORTH DAKOTA CITIZENS PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION$456,452
MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTHY FAMILIES & FAIR WAGES$250,000
NEBRASKANS FOR PAID SICK LEAVE$125,000
LINCOLN FOR FAIR HOUSING$100,000
PROTECT MAJORITY RULE$12,886
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–17, $600k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%FAMILIES USA FOUNDATION INC: $600k → 14%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
ME
VT
NH
ID
MT
ND
MI
MA
SD
OH
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
AZ
NM
AR
DC
MS
TX
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.

21%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$9.7M · 9 repeat orgs$36M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +119% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
32

Total granted

$9.7M
$10M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+119%
0%

Still filing today

56%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 5% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $26M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementHealthPublic BenefitOther
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

  • BP
    BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION
    2× · 2018–2020 · $935k · revenue ×82
  • MP
    MAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE
    2× · 2017–2022 · $241k · revenue +8%
  • UH
    UTAH HEALTH POLICY PROJECT
    2× · 2017–2018 · $76k · revenue +119%

Funded once

  • OU
    Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights
    one grant, 2023 · $2.8M
  • IT
    INSURE THE GOOD LIFE
    one grant, 2018 · $1.1M
  • ME
    MAINE EQUAL JUSTICE PROJECT
    one grant, 2017 · $621k · 33% of their budget
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
Protect Colorados Vote

To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact

—
2
Yes On National Popular Vote

Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote

—
3
People's Independent Commission

Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay

—
4
Nonpartisan Healthcare Coalition Broken Healthcare Action Fund

Issue Committee to sponsor a ballet measure for cost transparency

—
5
Defend Your Vote

To oppose a Michigan ballot measure

—
6
No Cuts to Care Pac

Support state ballot measure

—
7
Protect Women Ohio Action Inc

Protect Women Ohio Action is a Section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization and registered ballot committee in the State of Ohio engaged in advocacy activities related to the "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and…

—
8
Transparent Elections for Grassroots Engagement 1

Support state initative petition

—
9
New Approach Montana

New Approach Montana is a registered Montana ballot question committee in support of two 2020 ballot initiatives for the legalization of marijuana for adults 21 and older.

—
10
Equal Rights for All Petition

Amends Constitution: Specifies that prohibited discrimination includes discrimination concerning gender identity/pregnancy, related health decisions, sexual orientation

—
11
Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—
12
Ballot Pa Action

Informed and educated the public and lawmakers about the benefits of including independent voters in Pennsylvania's primary elections.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Floridians Protecting Freedom; the most unlike its peers is Raise the Wage Nebraska. 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

35 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. 35 of the 50 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/35
Grantees still filing
10/35
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM: $16,400,000 · OtherFLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOMMissourians for Constitutional Freedom: $4,450,000 · OtherMissourians for Constitutional FreedomUTAH DECIDES HEALTHCARE: $3,763,961 · OtherUTAH DECIDES HEALTHCAREARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS: $3,560,000 · OtherARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESSOhioans United for Reproductive Rights: $2,800,000 · OtherOhioans United for Reproductive Rights+35 more: $10,255,625 · Other+35 moreNEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $1,500,000 · Civil RightsBETTER JOBS FOR ALASKA INC: $1,430,000 · Civil RightsFORWARD ACTION FUND: $435,000 · Civil Rights+2 more: $24,000 · Civil RightsSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $1,100,000 · EnvironmentFAMILIES USA FOUNDATION INC: $600,000 · Human ServicesMAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE: $241,000 · Community ImprovementDEMAND JUSTICE: $221,239 · Public BenefitUTAH HEALTH POLICY PROJECT: $75,800 · Health
Other$41,229,586Civil Rights$3,389,000Environment$1,100,000Human Services$600,000Community Improvement$241,000Public Benefit$221,239Health$75,800

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 budgetFLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM: $16,400,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetMissourians for Constitutional Freedom: $4,450,000 over 1y, 68% of budgetOhioans United for Reproductive Rights: $2,800,000 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetNEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $1,500,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetBETTER JOBS FOR ALASKA INC: $1,430,000 over 1y, 86% of budgetMONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: $1,250,000 over 1y, 7.3% of budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $1,100,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetMAINE EQUAL JUSTICE PROJECT: $621,000 over 1y, 33% of budgetFAMILIES USA FOUNDATION INC: $600,000 over 1y, 9.0% of budgetOhioans for Reproductive Freedom PAC: $500,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetNORTH DAKOTA CITIZENS PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION: $456,452 over 1y, 44% of budgetProtect AR Constitution: $450,000 over 1y, 56% of budgetOne Person One Vote: $445,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetFORWARD ACTION FUND: $435,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetMISSOURIANS FOR HEALTHY FAMILIES AND FAI: $375,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetMONTANA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION: $325,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetMI TIME TO CARE: $300,000 over 2y, 25% of budgetRaise the Wage Nebraska: $265,000 over 1y, 8.7% of budgetWILL OF THE PEOPLE ARIZONA: $250,000 over 1y, 8.3% of budgetSOUTH DAKOTANS FOR FAIR ELECTIONS: $250,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetNebraskans for Paid Sick Leave: $250,000 over 2y, 55% of budgetMAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE: $241,000 over 2y, 6.5% of budgetDEMAND JUSTICE: $221,239 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetCOLORADO FAMILIES FIRST: $200,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetMISSOURIANS FOR HEALTHCARE: $200,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetSOUTH DAKOTANS DECIDE HEALTHCARE: $110,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetYes on Measure A for Sheriff Accountability Sponsored by Civil and: $100,000 over 1y, 24% of budgetUTAH HEALTH POLICY PROJECT: $75,800 over 2y, 7.2% of budgetVERMONT FOR REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY BALLOT COMMITTEE INC: $50,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetMAINERS FOR HOME CARE: $20,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetPROTECT MAJORITY RULE: $12,886 over 1y, 9.9% of budgetNEBRASKA APPLESEED ACTION FUND: $10,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetBALLOT INITIATIVE STRATEGY CENTER INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.4% 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Sixteen Thirty FundOpen Society Action F…American Civil Libert…Advocacy Action Fund …Planned Parenthood Ac…Hopewell FundGlobal Impact Social …North FundThink Big AmericaInstructional Telecom…Our American Future A…Tides Foundation
Sixteen Thirty FundDC55.3× affinity26 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Open Society Action Fund Inc · American Civil Liberties Union Inc · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc · Hopewell Fund · Global Impact Social Welfare Fund · North Fund · Think Big America · Instructional Telecommunications Foundation Inc · Our American Future Action · Tides Foundation

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 The Fairness Project funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Fairness Project. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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.

    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 50 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 Fairness Project’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