Skip to content
Wellness Advocacy Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Wellness Advocacy Fund

Promotion of social welfare to other 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations.

$3.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
29
Grants FY2025still arriving
11
States reached
$200k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Public Benefit$10MCivil Rights$3.9MEnvironment$1.4MEducation$275kCommunity Improvement$250kPhilanthropy$150kHuman Services$75k
02FY2025 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$17M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FORWARD ACTION FUND$200,000
SIXTEEN THIRTY - MODERN ELECTION$200,000
ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ACTION$200,000
SIXTEEN THIRTY - GALVANIZE$150,000
CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION$150,000
WAY TO WIN$150,000
INDIVISIBLE$150,000
CLIMATE EQUITY ACTION$150,000
FUTURE ACTION NOW$150,000
SIXTEEN THIRTY - RURAL VICTORY$150,000
AMERICA VOTES$125,000
END CITIZENS UNITEDLET AMERICA$100,000
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS$100,000
VOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC$100,000
MAKE THE ROAD ACTION$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 (FY21–25, $925k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 92% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Living United for Change in Arizona: $150k → 11%MomsRising Together: $75k → 9%CASA in Action Inc: $100k → 11%Living United for Change in Arizona: $150k → 11%CASA IN ACTION: $100k → 11%Living United for Change in Arizona: $100k → 11%CASA in Action Inc: $100k → 11%CASA in Action Inc: $100k → 11%Living United for Chagne in Arizona: $50k → 11%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
NH
WA
MT
IL
WI
MI
NY
OR
PA
CA
UT
VA
MD
AZ
DC
GA
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 10% of Wellness Advocacy Fund’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Wellness Advocacy Fundlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$13M · 29 repeat orgs$2.9M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +0% since the first grant, against -27% for those funded once.

29 repeat relationships: 20 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

29
22

Total granted

$13M
$2.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+0%
-27%

Still filing today

83%
64%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $250k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Civil RightsCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationPublic BenefitPhilanthropyOther
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

  • WT
    WAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +0%
  • AV
    America Votes
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +189%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1.0M · revenue +95%

Funded once

  • SP
    SOMOS PAC
    one grant, 2024 · $500k
  • MF
    MAJORITY FORWARD
    one grant, 2020 · $400k · revenue +14%
  • BV
    Black Voters Matter Fund Incgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $200k · revenue +86%
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
Defend the Vote Action Fund

To sustain and support the prioritization of comprehensive voting rights and democracy reform legislation at all levels of government.

—
2
Issue One Action

Issue one action is uniting republicans, democrats, and independents to protect our elections and fix our political system. we are committed to free, fair, and secure elections and reducing the influence of well-financed special interests…

—
3
Democracy Works Inc

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

Civil Rights
4
Register America

The organization is founded for social welfare purposes, including assisting with voter registration and advocating for policies which lead to increased voter registration in the united states.

—
5
Democracy Forward

See schedule o.this organization seeks to build collective power to defend and advance a vibrant democracy that benefits all people.

—
6
Right to Democracy Action

Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in u.s. territories, including by promoting civic engagement among the territorial diaspora throughout the united states.

—
7
Voteamerica

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

Civil Rights
8
RepresentUs

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…

Public Benefit
9
Coalition for Dc Representation in Congress Education Fund

Founded in 1998, dc vote is a national citizen engagement and advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening democracy and securing equality for all in the district of columbia.

Education
10
Act for America

Advocacy concerning democratic values, national security and defense; lobbying of government officials in favor of policies that further the defense of the u.s. and its constitution; development of coalitions with other organizations to…

Civil Rights
11
Right to Democracy Project

Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories through participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building.

Civil Rights
12
Verified Voting Foundation

Strengthen democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in all elections.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Stand Up America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Pontiac Policy Action Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

45 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. 45 of the 55 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
42/45
Grantees still filing
20/45
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC: $1,500,000 · Civil RightsWAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INCCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $1,000,000 · Civil RightsCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATIONALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ACTION: $800,000 · Civil RightsALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ACTIONINDIVISIBLE PROJECT: $750,000 · Civil RightsINDIVISIBLE PROJECTFORWARD ACTION FUND: $600,000 · Civil RightsFORWARD ACTION FUNDEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUND: $450,000 · Civil RightsEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION F…MAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC: $400,000 · Civil RightsRURAL ARIZONA ACTION: $350,000 · Civil RightsVOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC: $350,000 · Civil RightsASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $300,000 · Civil Rights+12 more: $1,375,000 · Civil Rights+12 moreTIDES ADVOCACY: $900,000 · OtherTIDES ADVOCACYSOMOS PAC: $500,000 · OtherSOMOS PACTHE PAC FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE: $450,000 · OtherTHE PAC FOR AMERICA'S FU…Way to Lead PAC: $400,000 · OtherWay to Lead PACMAJORITY FORWARD: $400,000 · OtherMAJORITY FORWARDBlack Voters Matter Fund Inc: $200,000 · OtherCHISPA AZ PAC: $200,000 · OtherLeaders We Deserve: $200,000 · OtherBLACK MALE VOTER PROJECT: $200,000 · OtherCASA IN ACTION PAC INC: $150,000 · Other+8 more: $600,000 · Other+8 moreSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $3,750,000 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN THIRTY FUNDCLIMATE EQUITY ACTION FUND: $150,000 · EnvironmentAmerica Votes: $1,125,000 · Community ImprovementAlaska Progressive Donor Table: $150,000 · Community ImprovementHOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD: $100,000 · Community ImprovementPENNSYLVANIA STANDS UP INC: $50,000 · Community ImprovementLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $450,000 · Human ServicesCASA IN ACTION INC: $400,000 · Human ServicesMOMSRISING TOGETHER: $75,000 · Human ServicesWe the People MI: $250,000 · EducationFAIR FIGHT ACTION INC: $200,000 · EducationRISE ACTION FUND: $150,000 · EducationFUTURE NOW ACTION: $450,000 · Public BenefitProgress Michigan Inc: $25,000 · Public BenefitRESET TECH ACTION: $200,000 · Philanthropy
Civil Rights$7,875,000Other$4,200,000Environment$3,900,000Community Improvement$1,425,000Human Services$925,000Education$600,000Public Benefit$475,000Philanthropy$200,000

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 budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $3,750,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetWAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC: $1,500,000 over 6y, 3.0% of budgetAmerica Votes: $1,125,000 over 4y, 1.0% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $1,000,000 over 4y, 6.5% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $900,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ACTION: $800,000 over 5y, 8.3% of budgetINDIVISIBLE PROJECT: $750,000 over 5y, 1.9% of budgetFORWARD ACTION FUND: $600,000 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $450,000 over 4y, 4.6% of budgetEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUND: $450,000 over 4y, 14% of budgetFUTURE NOW ACTION: $450,000 over 3y, 5.7% of budgetCASA IN ACTION INC: $400,000 over 4y, 4.1% of budgetMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC: $400,000 over 4y, 2.3% of budgetRURAL ARIZONA ACTION: $350,000 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetVOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC: $350,000 over 3y, 5.4% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $300,000 over 5y, 4.2% of budgetWe the People MI: $250,000 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetSTAND UP AMERICA INC: $250,000 over 2y, 9.7% of budgetIndian American Impact: $250,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $225,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetRESET TECH ACTION: $200,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetBlack Voters Matter Fund Inc: $200,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetFAIR FIGHT ACTION INC: $200,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetBLACK MALE VOTER PROJECT: $200,000 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetCENTER FOR EMPOWERED POLITICS EDUCATION FUND: $175,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetRISE ACTION FUND: $150,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetAlaska Progressive Donor Table: $150,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetPRIORITIES USA: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMI FAMILIA VOTA: $100,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetPROTECT DEMOCRACY UNITED: $100,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetHOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD: $100,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMOMSRISING TOGETHER: $75,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetRUP INC: $50,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetNATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetINDIGENOUS VOTE: $50,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetNEW GEORGIA PROJECT INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA STANDS UP INC: $50,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetFLORIDA RISING INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetProgress Michigan Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCOMMON POWER: $25,000 over 1y, 1.3% 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 FundAmerica VotesTides AdvocacyAll Hands on Deck Net…Open Society Action F…NEO Philanthropy Acti…Way to Win Action Fun…Women Donors Network …Tides FoundationOur American Future A…Pro-Democracy CampaignFuture Forward USA Ac…
Sixteen Thirty FundDC59.5× affinity28 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · America Votes · Tides Advocacy · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Women Donors Network Action · Tides Foundation · Our American Future Action · Pro-Democracy Campaign · Future Forward USA Action

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 Wellness Advocacy Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wellness Advocacy Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get 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 · 0–5%
    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 Wellness Advocacy Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Wellness Advocacy 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 55 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Wellness Advocacy’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