Our Criteria

Rather than attempting to evaluate every possible program, we think it's more strategic to fund a smaller set of deeply researched, highly effective programs. Concentrating our efforts has a larger impact than spreading donations around to dozens of programs that do not meet the same standards or have not been thoroughly researched.

We recommend programs with the highest impact per dollar spent that:

• Strengthen democracy in competitive states and districts. Some of the programs that do this are run by non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations. Those organizations do not in any way seek to help any candidate or party. Instead, they aim to increase voter information and participation.

• Win votes for pro-democracy candidates in key competitive races through programs operated by 501(c)(4) organizations and political action committees (PACs).

We examine potential funding opportunities, conducting thorough evaluations guided by the following criteria:

• Targeting key competitive races that strengthen our democracy, focused on the following types of contests:

  • Presidential battleground, Senate, House, gubernatorial, and state legislative races that are closely contested can tip an important balance of power, and where either party stands a realistic chance of winning.

  • Races with an outsized impact, such as presidential and gubernatorial races.

  • Races critical to maintaining a functioning democracy and upholding the rule of law, such as Secretary of State or state supreme court seats.
    

• Cost-Effective

  • We focus on identifying programs that we believe will maximize the impact of additional donations.

  • Wherever possible, Focus for Democracy Action estimates, for partisan programs, both the number of votes likely to be produced and the total “votes per $1,000” for each program we consider.

  • We seek out programs that yield more net votes per dollar than other election tactics.
    

• Evidence-Based and Rigorously Tested

  • We prioritize programs with strong, measurable evidence of their effectiveness, preferably through randomized controlled trials.

  • For programs and tactics that can’t be evaluated by randomized controlled trials, we dig deeply into all the available data, including the organization’s reputation and track record.
    

• Otherwise Underfunded

  • We ensure our donor contributions are additive by recommending donations to programs that we believe will not be adequately funded without help from our network. Our evaluators track the real-time budget gaps of our recommended programs and convene with funders outside our network to discuss their interest and capacity to fund these programs.
    

• Strategically Timed

  • Investing early can often mean a higher impact, but if deployed too early, the impact of some tactics might decay before the election.

  • Knowing how much runway is needed and being informed about the plans of other donor networks enables our network to donate not only where but also when, thereby optimizing effectiveness.
    

• With future Election Payoff

  • We prioritize investing in programs that have an impact on both current and future cycles and long-term voter empowerment.
    

We have exacting standards, and we hope to shed light on our thinking and our process. But it’s important to note that not everything important fits all of these criteria, and we pride ourselves on our flexibility to support other approaches when they fill key strategic gaps and appear to be the most effective way to serve the goal of protecting democracy.