Skip to content
Alaska Wilderness League at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Alaska Wilderness League

Protect alaska's wild lands and waters by inspiring broad support for federal policy action.

$139k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Environment$1.4MAnimals$125kCivil Rights$100kEducation$80kCommunity Improvement$20k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $115,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $138,500 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $23,500 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$20,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ENVIRONMENT$30,000
LOVE IS KING$25,000
NATIVE MOVEMENT$20,000
ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS$15,000
GWICH'IN STEERING COMMITTEE$15,000
NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER$10,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 89% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE ACTION: $654k → 14%LOVE IS KING: $25k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $40k → 12%NATIVE MOVEMENT: $100k → 8%ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS: $15k → 10%NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER: $49k → 21%NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $75k → 6%ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE ACTION: $301k → 14%LOVE IS KING: $25k → 12%ENVIROMENT AMERICA RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER: $100k → 12%GWICH'IN STEERING COMMITTEE: $15k → 21%NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $65k → 14%LOVE IS KING: $20k → 12%NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER: $10k → 21%NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $30k → 14%LOVE IS KING: $10k → 12%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.
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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 7 repeat orgs$270k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +76% since the first grant, against +37% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
4

Total granted

$1.5M
$255k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+76%
+37%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementReligionAnimalsOther
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

  • NM
    NATIVE MOVEMENT
    3× · 2021–2025 · $140k · revenue +80%
  • TN
    THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ENVIRONMENT INC
    2× · 2021–2025 · $95k · revenue +259%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION
    2× · 2020–2021 · $80k · revenue +76%

Funded once

  • EA
    ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +320%
  • NW
    NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $75k · revenue +37%
  • BH
    BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue -24%
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
Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…

Environment
2
Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment
3
Trustees for Alaska

Founded in 1974, trustees for alaska serves the public interest by providing legal counsel to protect and defend alaska's lands, waters, wildlife, and people.

Environment
4
Environment Now
—
5
National Ecological Observatory Network Inc
Recreation & Sports
6
North Dakota Natural Resources Trust
—
7
Braided River

We inspire people to protect wild places through images and stories that change perspectives, western north america's public lands are under threat. using the power of beautiful images, we publish photography books and create multimedia…

Environment
8
Amazon Conservation Team

The amazon conservation team (act) partners with indigenous and other local communities to protect tropical forests and strengthen traditional culture.

Science & Tech
9
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
10
International Conservation Caucus Network

To advance conservation governance through political will and to provide "on the ground" solutions to ensure sustained economic benefits while managing the earth's natural resource wealth for future generations.

Unclassified
11
Northwest Environmental Advocates

Work through advocacy and education to use federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act to protect and restore water quality and habit in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide.

Environment
12
Buffalo Nations Grasslands Alliance

The Buffalo Nations Grasslands Alliance's mission is to ensure that the Native nations in the US portion of the Northern Great Plains have the technical and financial resources to plan and act on the vision for their traditional lands and…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Research and Policy Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is National Wildlife Federation. 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

12 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
8/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE ACTION: $955,200 · EnvironmentALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE ACTIONENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC: $100,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INCNORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER: $58,714 · EnvironmentBACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS: $50,000 · Environment+1 more: $15,000 · EnvironmentNATIVE MOVEMENT: $140,000 · Community ImprovementNATIVE MO…UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $80,000 · EducationINDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK: $30,000 · EducationTHE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ENVIRONMENT INC: $94,500 · ReligionLOVE IS KING INC: $79,600 · OtherNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $75,000 · AnimalsGWICHIN STEERING COMMITTEE: $65,000 · Arts & Culture
Environment$1,178,914Community Improvement$140,000Education$110,000Religion$94,500Other$79,600Animals$75,000Arts & Culture$65,000

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 budgetALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE ACTION: $955,200 over 2y, 61% of budgetNATIVE MOVEMENT: $140,000 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC: $100,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetTHE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ENVIRONMENT INC: $94,500 over 2y, 23% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $80,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLOVE IS KING INC: $79,600 over 4y, 14% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $75,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGWICHIN STEERING COMMITTEE: $65,000 over 2y, 9.8% of budgetNORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER: $58,714 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetBACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS: $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetINDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK: $30,000 over 1y, 0.6% 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.

PatagoniaorgThe Wilderness SocietyWestern Conservation …New Venture FundFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
PatagoniaorgCA17.5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · The Wilderness Society · Western Conservation Foundation · New Venture Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Alaska Wilderness League funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Alaska Wilderness League. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Love Is King Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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.

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 12 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 Alaska Wilderness League’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