· Public charity
The Voter Project Fund
We are dedicated to ensuring all voters can cast a ballot in a safe, secure and convenient way.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2022–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k13 grants · $223k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $318k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PA ALLIANCE FOUNDATION | $200,000 |
| PROMOTE THE VOTE | $60,000 |
| PHILADELPHIA MURAL ARTS | $57,500 |
| MANTUA CARES ASSOCIATION | $40,000 |
| FEDERATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS INC | $38,000 |
| UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM | $20,000 |
| NEW VOTERS ORG | $20,000 |
| DOMINICAN GROCERS ASSOCIATION NONPROFIT | $20,000 |
| PROJECT 26 PENNSYLVANIA | $15,000 |
| DEVELOPING OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDING EQUITY | $10,000 |
| WE LOVE PHILLY | $10,000 |
| FRONTLINE DADS INC | $10,000 |
| WHY NOT PROSPER INC | $10,000 |
| AFRICAN CULTURAL ALLIANCE OF NORTH AMERICA | $10,000 |
| CHEW & CHELTEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (LEGAL CHEW AND CHELTEN C | $10,000 |
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 (FY24–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 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.
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.
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.
Cultivating the next generation of progressive leaders across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The New Pennsylvania Project (NPP) is a voting rights organization with a
The PA Alliance Action seeks to advocate at the state level for democracy reform through grassroots activities and support of like-minded organizations on behalf of and in support of all Pennsylvanians, in particular historically…
Our mission is to empower and engage communities of color in Philadelphia through voter education, community outreach, and civic engagement initiatives. We are committed to ensuring every voice is heard by providing accessible information…
) to lead and engage in campaigns that empower Black workers to advance our rights and improve job quality in key employment sectors
To combat community deterioration and promote education.
Building support for the rights of working people through coalitions of labor and community and through public education.
Informed and educated the public and lawmakers about the benefits of including independent voters in Pennsylvania's primary elections.
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…
The organization's non-partisan mission is to increase voter turnout and participation in local elections.
Improve the quality of life for the community and its residents.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Promote the Vote Pa and the most unlike its peers is Chew and Chelton Cdc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 17 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 The Voter Project ↗
- Who funds PA Alliance Foundation ↗
- Who funds PROMOTE THE VOTE PA ↗
- Who funds PHILADELPHIA MURAL ARTS ADVOCATES INC ↗
- Who funds FEDERATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ↗
- Who funds NEW VOTERS ORG ↗
- Who funds PROJECT 26 PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN CULTURAL ALLIANCE OF NORTH AMERICA ↗
- Who funds TRASH 2 TREASURE ↗
- Who funds Why Not Prosper Inc ↗
- Who funds Chew and Chelton CDC ↗
- Who funds WE LOVE PHILLY ↗
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: The Philadelphia Foundation · Bread and Roses Community Fund · The William Penn Foundation · Pa Alliance Action · PA Alliance Foundation · Philanthropy Network Greater Philadelphia · The Patricia Kind Family Foundation · The Barra Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 Voter Project 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 The Voter Project Fund?
Find your warmest path to The Voter Project 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.