· Public charity
Way to Win Action Fund Inc
The primary purpose of way to win action fund is to promote social welfare, particularly as it relates to creating, implementing and supporting public policies that advance racial and economic justice in the united states.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k8 grants · $130k
- $50k–250k64 grants · $6.3M
- $250k+27 grants · $11M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WORKING FAMILIES POWER | $1,165,000 |
| TEAMSTERS DEFENDING DEMOCRACY & WORKERS RIGHTS | $850,000 |
| LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA | $660,000 |
| MAKE THE ROAD ACTION (NEVADA) | $650,000 |
| WORKER POWER | $575,000 |
| MORE PERFECT UNION ACTION | $500,000 |
| INDIVISIBLE PROJECT | $500,000 |
| CAROLINA FEDERATION FREEDOM PAC | $440,000 |
| PROGRESS ARIZONA | $400,000 |
| NEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUND | $400,000 |
| PEOPLE'S ACTION POWER | $400,000 |
| DOWN HOME NORTH CAROLINA | $355,000 |
| OUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA | $350,000 |
| NCAAT IN ACTION | $350,000 |
| COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION | $350,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $5.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 84% of those 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 +10% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
96 repeat relationships — 57 still active in FY2024, 39 since wound down; 37 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.0M 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
- WFWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC5× · 2020–2024 · $6.0M · revenue +57%
- BVBlack Voters Matter Fund Inc5× · 2020–2024 · $2.6M · revenue +86% · 29% of their budget
- MTMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC4× · 2020–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +132%
Funded once
- NMNEW MEDIA VENTURESone grant, 2023 · $680k · revenue -69% · 62% of their budget
- AAADRC ACTIONone grant, 2022 · $500k · revenue -95%
- ISINDEPENDENT STRATEGIC RESEARCH COLLABORATIVEone grant, 2021 · $500k
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.
Bold Impact is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting a democracy where all communities get to thrive.
Powerswitch action is a national network forging collective democracy and economies in our cities and states, together with our 21 grassroots affiliates.
Six action realizes a bold policy agenda that secures and sustains meaningful racial, gender, social and economic justice outcomes that center the people most impacted by systemic and structural oppression. we support values-aligned state…
Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in u.s. territories, including by promoting civic engagement among the territorial diaspora throughout the united states.
Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories through participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building.
The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.
One for democracy unlocks resources to build a healthy democracy by fostering meaningful relationships between philanthropists and the democracy leaders of our time.
To develop and advocate for legislation, regulations, ballot initiatives, and government programs as a voice of the working class, to promote social justice, and to stimulate the economy; and, to conduct research, educate the public, and…
Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay
RepresentUs is America's leading nonpartisan grassroots organization working for a government accountable to the people. We unite people from all backgrounds to defend democracy, root out corruption, mobilize action, and support campaigns…
All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!
The climate equity action fund (ceaf) works hand-in-hand with community-based partners in critical states across the country to secure and sustain policy wins for climate and clean energy. building on over a decade of trust with leading…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Groundwork Action Fund and the most unlike its peers is Generator Collective. 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 8 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 21% of your grantees by number, and just 17% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
208 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 208 of the 235 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 WORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION ↗
- Who funds TIDES ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds Black Voters Matter Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds ORGANIZE FOR JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds TEXAS FOR ALL ↗
- Who funds MAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds FLORIDA RISING INC ↗
- Who funds NEW GEORGIA PROJECT ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds Activate 48 Inc ↗
- Who funds MORE PERFECT UNION ACTION ↗
- Who funds CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT LABORATORY ↗
- Who funds TEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK ↗
- Who funds UNITE HERE ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds BGTX Engagement Fund ↗
- Who funds FAITH IN MINNESOTA ↗
- Who funds FIGHT CORPORATE MONOPOLIES ↗
- Who funds MOVE TEXAS ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds DOWN HOME NC ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds FORWARD ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP ALLIANCE OF NEVADA ACTION ↗
- Who funds OUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds NCAAT IN ACTION ↗
- Who funds ONE APIA NEVADA ↗
- Who funds DEMAND PROGRESS ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds Teamsters Defending Democracy & Workers Rights ↗
- Who funds Action Center on Race and the Economy ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD TEXAS VOTES ↗
- Who funds CASA IN ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds WORKERS DEFENSE ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds ADVANCE NORTH CAROLINA INC ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI WIN ↗
- Who funds NEW MEDIA VENTURES ↗
- Who funds SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND ↗
- Who funds AMERICANS FOR CONTRACEPTION ↗
- Who funds Instituto Power ↗
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: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Tides Advocacy · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Women Donors Network Action · America Votes · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · Pro-Democracy Campaign · State Engagement Fund · North Fund · Climate Equity Action Fund · Grove Action 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 Way to Win Action Fund Inc 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 Way to Win Action Fund Inc?
Find your warmest path to Way to Win Action Fund Inc 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.