How much did VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT grant in FY2024?

Civil Rights$22MPublic Benefit$2.1MEnvironment$932kHealth$257kEducation$118kCommunity Improvement$30kHousing & Shelter$23kHuman Services$14kEmployment$12kOther$1.9M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

civic engagementeducationdemocracy

2019

politicalnorthvisionselfadvocacyneighborhoodsawareness

2020

latinovoicesrequiredagreementgranteesclosevoting

2021

misinformationrequiredagreementgranteesincreasing

2022

hopewellchangemakersinnovativemovementschangemovementvoters

2023

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

$50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$250k+4 grants · $5.9M

$446,800

Median grant

States reached

$3.2M

Total assets

Largest grants

THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER$4,416,125
VOTE REV ACTION FUND$768,850
MICHIGAN VOICES$446,800
IDENTIFY YOUR DREAM$257,360
MISSISSIPPI VOTES$100,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY19–19, $14k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$21M · 11 repeat orgs$6.0M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +286% since the first grant, against +95% for the ones you funded once.

11 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$21M

$4.8M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+286%

+95%

Still filing today

91%

80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Civil RightsPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentPhilanthropyHealthOther

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

VP
VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER
6× · 2017–2024 · $15M · revenue +1175% · 27% of their budget
P
PROGEORGIA
4× · 2018–2022 · $1.4M · revenue +116%
MV
MINNESOTA VOICE
2× · 2020–2022 · $1.1M · revenue +115%

Funded once

CE
COLLECTIVE EDUCATION FUND
one grant, 2020 · $1.8M · 33% of their budget
LO
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUNDgraduated
one grant, 2018 · $932k · revenue +353%
WW
WHEN WE ALL VOTE
one grant, 2020 · $425k · revenue +405%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Vote Org

Vote.org's primary purpose is to build web-based technologies that remove barriers to vote and increase voter turnout.

Civil Rights

Our Voice Our Vote Arizona

Our voice our vote arizona is dedicated to community organizing and advocacy, with a focus on leadership development, voter registration, and voter engagement.continued on schedule o

Civil Rights

Voteamerica

Voteamerica uses technology to simplify political engagement and increase voter turnout.

Civil Rights

All Americans Vote

All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!

Civil Rights

More Than a Vote

Educate, energize, and protect voters as they headed to the ballot box. but, as our name makes clear, we were always about more than voting.

Civil Rights

Civica Initiatives

Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions

Community Improvement

Colorado Democracy Alliance

The Colorado Democracy Alliance is an organization committed to protecting democracy and expanding Colorados civic engagement ecosystem.

Civil Rights

Chicago Votes

Leadership development and non partisan civic education.

Civil Rights

Jolt Action Inc

We believe young Latinos will transform Texas through the power of their vote. We are harnessing the brilliance of our community and culture to build a generation of leaders that matches the urgency of our time.

Human Services

Our Voice Nuestra Voz

Our Voice Nuestra Voz strategy focuses around empowering communities through direct action organizing, capacity building, centering identity and culture, and collaboration with institutions, stakeholders, and policymakers.

Human Services

Independent Women's Voice

Engage more individuals in legislative advocacy, educate them about the impact of public policies on their lives and our economy, and build support for policies that empower individuals by giving them greater freedom and autonomy.

Civil Rights

Voces Unidas De Las Montanas

To elevate the voices of latinas and latinos, create opportunities where latinas and latinos can advocate for themselves, and increase latina and latino representation and participation in decision-making tables.

Public Benefit

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is State Voices and the most unlike its peers is Unidosus. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 12 years old; the field is 18. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2/49

the rest of the field

10%

1,356/12,952

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.

05the grantee network

46 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

41/46

Grantees still filing

39/46

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Civil Rights$21,962,705Public Benefit$2,145,076Other$1,990,623Environment$932,220Health$257,360Education$118,394Community Improvement$30,267

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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Voter Registration ProjectDC55× affinity23 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Voter Registration Project · NEO Philanthropy Inc · New Venture Fund · Tides Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Hopewell Fund · State Voices · Windward Fund · Telescope Fund · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Proteus Fund Inc · Women Donors Network

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 organisation VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

2get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: INSPIRE US.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

high risk

~0 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 2 filed years.

Track record & reputation

high risk

2 years of Form 990 filings, no recent filing.

Legal standing

medium risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 813404148 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on INSPIRE US, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 0 months of cash on hand.
FlagSustained operations— No recent filing on record.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 52% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Voter Registration Project?

Find your warmest path to Voter Registration Project through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

46 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Voter Registration Project?

More from the funding graph

VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

46 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Voter Registration Project?

More from the funding graph