Skip to content
Voter Registration Project Education Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Voter Registration Project Education Fund

The organization is organized for charitable and educational purposes, including increasing voting among groups which are typically underrepresented in the electoral process.

$6.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$4.4M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Public Benefit$26MEnvironment$932kHealth$257kSocial Science$149kCivil Rights$10k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
  • $250k+4 grants · $5.9M
$446,800
Median grant
3
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (FY19–19, $14k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE FIRST COAST LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION JACKSONVILLE: $14k → 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

MN
WI
MI
NY
NV
OH
PA
CA
CO
AZ
NC
DC
MS
GA
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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$21M · 10 repeat orgs$6.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +286% since the first grant, against +28% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
34

Total granted

$21M
$4.8M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+286%
+28%

Still filing today

100%
79%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M 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 RightsPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentHealthEducationOther
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

  • TV
    THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER
    6× · 2017–2024 · $15M · revenue ×13 · 27% of their budget
  • PS
    PROGEORGIA STATE TABLE INC
    4× · 2018–2022 · $1.4M · revenue +116%
  • PENNSYLVANIA VOICE
    4× · 2018–2022 · $923k · revenue +341%

Funded once

  • TC
    THE COLLECTIVE EDUCATION FUND
    one grant, 2020 · $1.8M · 33% of their budget
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $932k · revenue +121%
  • WW
    WHEN WE ALL VOTE
    one grant, 2020 · $425k · revenue 0%
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
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
2
Our Voice Our Vote Arizona

Our voice our vote arizona engages in community organizing, leadership development, and civic participation efforts. the organization focuses on voter registration, education, and engagement to strengthen communities and encourage active…

Civil Rights
3
Chicago Votes

Chicago Votes is a non-partisan, non-profit organization building a more inclusive democracy by putting power in the hands of young Chicagoans. We're engaging and developing a new generation of leaders by opening the doors of government,…

Civil Rights
4
All Americans Vote

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

Civil Rights
5
Democracy Works Inc

The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.

Civil Rights
6
Send the Vote Inc

Conduct digital, direct mail and other public communication campaigns to support voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.

—
7
Civica Initiatives

Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions

Community Improvement
8
Civic Tn

Civictn and its partners are working individually and collectively to create a more accessible, inclusive, and representative democracy by lifting up the voices of the disenfranchised, restoring the power and accessibility of the vote, and…

Civil Rights
9
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
10
Voteorg

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

Civil Rights
11
Voteamerica

The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.

Civil Rights
12
Alabama Values

A nonpartisan grassroots communication organization that works to raise awareness and increase engagement around community issues in alabama by working directly with civic organizations advocating civic participation in communities across…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mi Familia En Accion; the most unlike its peers is Radical Registrars. 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

46 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. 46 of the 48 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
18
Early backer (in before they grew)
41/46
Grantees still filing
28/46
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $15,006,634 · Civil RightsTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTERTHE COLLECTIVE EDUCATION FUND: $1,795,000 · Civil RightsTHE COLLECTIVE EDUCATION FUNDPROGEORGIA STATE TABLE INC: $1,420,062 · Civil RightsPROGEORGIA STATE TABLE INCPENNSYLVANIA VOICE: $922,745 · Civil RightsMICHIGAN VOICES: $769,932 · Civil RightsVOTE REV ACTION FUND: $768,850 · Civil Rights+17 more: $2,044,397 · Civil Rights+17 moreMinnesota Voice: $1,097,016 · Public BenefitTHE OHIO ORGANIZING COLLABORATIVE: $721,660 · Public BenefitNEO Philanthropy Inc: $237,286 · Public BenefitOHIO VOICE: $89,114 · Public BenefitWHEN WE ALL VOTE: $425,000 · OtherACRONYM: $246,625 · OtherINSPIRE US: $170,000 · Othertriplecheck: $149,100 · OtherBGTX Engagement Fund: $50,000 · OtherUNIDOSUS: $41,273 · Other+9 more: $143,710 · OtherLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $932,220 · EnvironmentIDENTIFY YOUR DREAM CORPORATION: $257,360 · HealthBLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA: $118,394 · EducationASIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $12,267 · Community ImprovementPROYECTO VIDA DIGNA: $10,000 · Community ImprovementUNIFOUR ONE INC: $8,000 · Community Improvement
Civil Rights$22,727,620Public Benefit$2,145,076Other$1,225,708Environment$932,220Health$257,360Education$118,394Community Improvement$30,267

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 budgetTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $15,006,634 over 6y, 27% of budgetTHE COLLECTIVE EDUCATION FUND: $1,795,000 over 1y, 33% of budgetPROGEORGIA STATE TABLE INC: $1,420,062 over 4y, 4.3% of budgetMinnesota Voice: $1,097,016 over 2y, 22% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $932,220 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA VOICE: $922,745 over 4y, 5.9% of budgetMICHIGAN VOICES: $769,932 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetVOTE REV ACTION FUND: $768,850 over 1y, 8.5% of budgetTHE OHIO ORGANIZING COLLABORATIVE: $721,660 over 2y, 8.5% of budgetONE ARIZONA: $595,887 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetSTATE VOICES: $575,695 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetWHEN WE ALL VOTE: $425,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetCOLORADO CIVIC ENGAGEMENT ROUNDTABLE: $276,362 over 2y, 16% of budgetIDENTIFY YOUR DREAM CORPORATION: $257,360 over 1y, 44% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $237,286 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetINSPIRE US: $170,000 over 1y, 52% of budgettriplecheck: $149,100 over 1y, 42% of budgetWISCONSIN VOICES INC: $131,988 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetBLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA: $118,394 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetMISSISSIPPI VOTES: $100,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetVOTER FORMATION PROJECT: $90,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetOHIO VOICE: $89,114 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetMI FAMILIA EN ACCION: $83,445 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetBGTX Engagement Fund: $50,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetVOTO LATINO FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetUNIDOSUS: $41,273 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR REFORM AND EM DBA ORGANIZE FLORIDA EDUCATION FUND: $28,050 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetREW MINISTRIES: $23,000 over 1y, 22% of budgetFlorida Immigrant Coalition Inc: $14,550 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFLORIDA RISING TOGETHER INC: $14,250 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNew Era Colorado Foundation: $13,800 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetGeorgia Strategic Alliance for New: $12,420 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA ASIAN AMERICANS TOGETHER: $12,420 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetASIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $12,267 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetRadical Registrars: $10,000 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetHOPEWELL FUND: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPROYECTO VIDA DIGNA: $10,000 over 1y, 8.1% of budgetTEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK EDUCATION FUND: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetJOLT INITIATIVE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetOFICINA LEGAL DEL PUEBLO UNIDO INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ORGANIZING: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNIFOUR ONE INC: $8,000 over 1y, 1.1% 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.

Voter Registration Pr…NEO Philanthropy IncNew Venture FundTides FoundationAmalgamated Charitabl…Hopewell FundWindward FundState VoicesTelescope FundThe Prentice Foundati…Alliance for Youth Or…Silicon Valley Commun…
Voter Registration ProjectDC60× affinity26 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 · Windward Fund · State Voices · Telescope Fund · The Prentice Foundation Inc · Alliance for Youth Organizing · Silicon Valley Community 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 Voter Registration Project Education Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Voter Registration Project Education Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Voter Registration Project Education Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Voter Registration Project Education 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.

    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 48 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 Voter Registration Project Education’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