Skip to content
Bonneville Environmental Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Bonneville Environmental Foundation

We bring together partners across all sectors of society to co-create innovative solutions that address climate challenges primarily by restoring freshwater ecosystems and catalyzing a renewable energy future for all.

$23M
Granted FY2025still arriving
42
Grants FY2025still arriving
15
States reached
$4.0M
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$48MScience & Tech$1.0MArts & Culture$753kEducation$753kAnimals$745kHousing & Shelter$687kInternational$625kHealth$563kOther$0
02FY2025 · 42 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 42 grants below total $19,330,616, the rows itemized in this filing. The $23,498,704 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,168,088 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.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k16 grants · $333k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $877k
  • $250k+15 grants · $18M
$50,702
Median grant
15
States reached
$69M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TROUT UNLIMITED$4,006,878
NEW VENTURE FUND$3,159,228
COCOPAH TRIBAL NATION$2,500,000
COLUMBIA BASIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT$1,500,000
NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION$1,000,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$999,267
TAKING CARE OF TEXAS DBA TEXAN BY NATURE$879,431
SANTA CLARA RIVER CONSERVANCY$754,580
CUMBERLAND RIVER COMPACT$738,628
SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATION$608,200
DESCHUTES RIVER CONSERVANCY$545,195
DUCKS UNLIMITED$519,000
WATERORG$375,100
LEWIS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA$270,800
CARMICHAEL WATER DISTRICT$250,000
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 (FY17–20, $43k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 23% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%UNITED COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: $10k → 17%HOLDEN VILLAGE: $16k → 9%BYRD BARR PLACE: $17k → 9%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

VT
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
OH
PA
CA
UT
CO
MO
VA
AZ
NM
AR
TN
DC
HI
GA
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $4.2M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$2.3M · 55% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: POLLINATOR GARDENS LIMMAT RIVER WATERSHED · RIVER VARTRY ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION · HYDROLOGICAL STUDY - LIFE ATLANTIC VALLEYS

East Asia and the Pacific$912k · 22% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: RESTORATION OF TAMAN AMAN PARKLAKE PROJECT · WINGECARRIBEE RIVER POST-FIRE RESTORATION

North America (Canada and Mexico)$594k · 14% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES · QUWUTSUN-XWULQWSELU WHOLE OF WATERSHED HEALTH PROJECT · BEF CONTRIBUTION TO RESILIENT WATERS PROJECT OPPORTUNITY GRANT

South Asia$376k · 9% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY PROJECT IN MUSI-KRISHNA RIVER BASIN, INDIA - ONGOING PROJECT MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING · TOWARDS ONE BILLION DROPS PERCOLATION PROJECT

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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 19% of Bonneville Environmental Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Bonneville Environmental Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 15% directed abroad (not shown)
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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$31M · 61 repeat orgs$17M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +38% since the first grant, against +28% for those funded once.

61 repeat relationships: 19 still active in FY2025, 42 since wound down; 21 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

61
140

Total granted

$31M
$10M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+28%

Still filing today

70%
59%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.8M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationInternationalHousing & ShelterAnimalsPhilanthropyOther
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

  • TU
    TROUT UNLIMITED INC
    6× · 2019–2025 · $4.8M · revenue +133%
  • RP
    RIVER PARTNERS
    2× · 2021–2024 · $2.3M · revenue +159%
  • DU
    Ducks Unlimited Inc
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1.9M · revenue +12%

Funded once

  • WC
    WATERSTART CHANNELS FOR INNOVATION
    one grant, 2024 · $1.0M · revenue -99% · 79% of their budget
  • NI
    N-DRIP INC
    one grant, 2023 · $805k
  • CR
    COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
    one grant, 2023 · $553k
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
Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council

The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is a local nonprofit organization that strives to enhance and restore habitat for fish and wildlife our community and for future generations. Our Board of Directors consists of seven members with…

Environment
2
Western Rivers Conservancy

Western rivers conservancy's mission is to protect outstanding river ecosystems in the western united states. continued on schedule o.we acquire land to conserve critical habitat, provide public access for compatible use and enjoyment, and…

Environment
3
Western Resource Advocates

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization fighting climate change and its impacts to sustain the environment, economy, and people of the West. As the region's go-to experts for more than three decades,…

Crime & Legal
4
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
5
Idaho Conservation League Inc

Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.

—
6
Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund

Oregon Wild works to protect and restore Oregon's wildlands, wildlife and waters as an enduring legacy for future generations.

Environment
7
WaterWatch of Oregon

WaterWatch is a water conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring streamflows in Oregon rivers for fish, wildlife and the people who depend on healthy rivers.

—
8
Nw Energy Coalition

The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…

—
9
Truckee River Watershed Council

The truckee river watershed council was founded to implement locally developed public-private collaborative solutions to protect and improve water quality and biological resources for the sustainable environmental and economic health of…

Environment
10
Coquille Watershed Association

Coquille watershed association (coqwa) works collaboratively with communities and landowners to develop and implement voluntary watershed restoration, enhancement, and community engagement activities that promote healthy and resilient…

Food & Nutrition
11
Bitterroot Water Partnership

BWP leads reliable and intentional conservation initiatives that promote and provide clean, ample water for people and habitats by working with key partners and our communities

Environment
12
Tuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance

At Yosemite Rivers Alliance, we unite conservation and community to protect and restore the three rivers that ?ow through the Yosemite Regionthe Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is River Partners; the most unlike its peers is Portland Energy Conservation Inc. 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

146 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 146 of the 225 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.

8
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
30
Early backer (in before they grew)
141/146
Grantees still filing
93/146
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

State of Arizona: $3,325,275 · OtherState of ArizonaTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2,570,077 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYCOCOPAH TRIBAL NATION: $2,500,000 · OtherCOCOPAH TRIBAL NATIONCOLUMBIA BASIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $1,500,000 · OtherCOLUMBIA BASIN CONSERVATION DISTRICTDOUGLAS PUD: $1,020,000 · OtherWATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $985,000 · OtherLEWIS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA: $933,200 · OtherN-DRIP INC: $805,000 · Other+99 more: $9,966,926 · Other+99 moreNEW VENTURE FUND: $3,189,228 · EnvironmentNEW VENTURE FUNDRIVER PARTNERS: $2,281,905 · EnvironmentRIVER PARTNERSDucks Unlimited Inc: $1,854,072 · EnvironmentDucks Unlimited IncTaking Care of Texas: $1,701,431 · EnvironmentTaking Care of TexasCOUNCIL FOR WATERSHED HEALTH: $1,446,289 · EnvironmentCOUNCIL FOR WATERSHED HEALTHWATERSTART CHANNELS FOR INNOVATION: $1,000,000 · EnvironmentSustainable Conservation: $937,200 · EnvironmentSANTA CLARA RIVER CONSERVANCY: $754,580 · EnvironmentCUMBERLAND RIVER COMPACT INC: $738,628 · Environment+60 more: $6,556,412 · Environment+60 moreTROUT UNLIMITED INC: $4,814,029 · AnimalsTROUT UNLI…UPPER COLUMBIA SALMON RECOVERY BOARD: $215,000 · Animals+2 more: $26,429 · AnimalsNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $1,437,500 · Recreation & SportsFriends of Tryon Creek: $74,288 · Recreation & Sports+2 more: $81,857 · Recreation & SportsChico State Enterprises: $1,120,000 · EducationWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $75,000 · Education+3 more: $65,000 · EducationWATERORG: $375,100 · InternationalCLEAN INTERNATIONAL INC: $300,000 · InternationalWATERAID AMERICA INC: $250,000 · InternationalPACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT & SECURITY: $97,463 · InternationalTwende Solar: $40,000 · InternationalWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $38,113 · InternationalNEVADA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $150,000 · PhilanthropyONE TREE PLANTED INC: $100,000 · PhilanthropyGROUNDWORK HUDSON VALLEY INC: $50,000 · PhilanthropyAlsea Community Effort: $40,035 · PhilanthropyFRIENDS OF THE VERDE RIVER: $40,000 · Philanthropy
Other$23,605,478Environment$20,459,745Animals$5,055,458Recreation & Sports$1,593,645Education$1,260,000International$1,100,676Philanthropy$380,035

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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 budgetTROUT UNLIMITED INC: $4,814,029 over 6y, 3.7% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $3,189,228 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2,570,077 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetRIVER PARTNERS: $2,281,905 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc: $1,854,072 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetTaking Care of Texas: $1,701,431 over 3y, 14% of budgetCOUNCIL FOR WATERSHED HEALTH: $1,446,289 over 4y, 23% of budgetNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $1,437,500 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetChico State Enterprises: $1,120,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetWATERSTART CHANNELS FOR INNOVATION: $1,000,000 over 1y, 79% of budgetSustainable Conservation: $937,200 over 4y, 4.9% of budgetCUMBERLAND RIVER COMPACT INC: $738,628 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetWASHINGTON WATER TRUST: $650,000 over 2y, 19% of budgetDESCHUTES RIVER CONSERVANCY: $637,195 over 3y, 22% of budgetNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $520,294 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetTHE DIGDEEP RIGHT TO WATER PROJECT: $448,588 over 4y, 1.5% of budgetBOULDER WATERSHED COLLECTIVE: $385,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetLower Columbia Estuary Partnership: $319,775 over 4y, 2.7% of budgetCLEAN INTERNATIONAL INC: $300,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetCOLORADO WATER TRUST: $289,250 over 4y, 3.1% of budgetForth Mobility Fund: $265,640 over 4y, 3.8% of budgetTROUT UNLIMITED TED TRUEBLOOD CHAPTER: $250,000 over 1y, 92% of budgetWATERAID AMERICA INC: $250,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetBEAR RIVER CANAL COMPANY: $230,000 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetUPPER COLUMBIA SALMON RECOVERY BOARD: $215,000 over 5y, 6.7% of budgetPLUMAS CORPORATION: $200,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetGREAT BASIN INSTITUTE: $200,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATURE IN ISRAEL INC: $200,000 over 1y, 8.0% of budgetAMERICAN RIVERS INC: $200,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetSouth Santiam Watershed Council: $173,387 over 4y, 21% of budgetHEAL THE BAY: $170,000 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetMETHOW SALMON RECOVERY FOUNDATION: $160,000 over 5y, 3.1% of budgetNEVADA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $150,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPHEASANTS FOREVER INC: $150,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMCKENZIE WATERSHED ALLIANCE: $140,000 over 3y, 3.3% of budgetSCOTT RIVER WATER TRUST: $140,000 over 1y, 74% of budgetThe South Fork Conservancy Incorporated: $110,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE TETON RIVER INC: $109,800 over 4y, 4.6% of budgetORCAS POWER & LIGHT COOPERATIVE: $100,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetFALL RIVER RURAL ELECT COOPERATIVE INC: $100,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetONE TREE PLANTED INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT & SECURITY: $97,463 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetTransition Projects Inc: $80,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFriends of Tryon Creek: $74,288 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetLONG TOM WATERSHED COUNCIL: $70,320 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetHOPEWORKS SOCIAL ENTERPRISES: $67,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetRogue Basin Partnership: $65,135 over 3y, 5.7% 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.

  • Who funds TROUT UNLIMITED INC ↗
  • Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds RIVER PARTNERS ↗
  • Who funds Ducks Unlimited Inc ↗
  • Who funds Taking Care of Texas ↗
  • Who funds COUNCIL FOR WATERSHED HEALTH ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Chico State Enterprises ↗
  • Who funds WATERSTART CHANNELS FOR INNOVATION ↗
  • Who funds Sustainable Conservation ↗
  • Who funds SANTA CLARA RIVER CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds CUMBERLAND RIVER COMPACT INC ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON WATER TRUST ↗
  • Who funds DESCHUTES RIVER CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds THE DIGDEEP RIGHT TO WATER PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds BOULDER WATERSHED COLLECTIVE ↗
  • Who funds WATERORG ↗
  • Who funds Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership ↗
  • Who funds CLEAN INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
  • Who funds COLORADO WATER TRUST ↗
  • Who funds Forth Mobility Fund ↗
  • Who funds TROUT UNLIMITED TED TRUEBLOOD CHAPTER ↗

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.

National Fish and Wil…The Nature ConservancyResources Legacy FundMeyer Memorial TrustPatagoniaorgNational Forest Found…Gray Family FoundationLaird Norton Family F…The Roundhouse Founda…Water FoundationThe Bullitt FoundationRiver Network
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC61.1× affinity55 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Resources Legacy Fund · Meyer Memorial Trust · Patagoniaorg · National Forest Foundation · Gray Family Foundation · Laird Norton Family Foundation · The Roundhouse Foundation · Water Foundation · The Bullitt Foundation · River Network

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 Bonneville Environmental Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bonneville Environmental Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 70%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 36%
  • Deschutes River Conservancy: 100% of income from government
  • Mckenzie Watershed Alliance: 100% of income from government
  • Pacific Ocean Energy Trust: 100% of income from government
  • Siuslaw Watershed Council Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Luckiamute Watershed Council: 100% of income from government
  • Crooked River Watershed Council: 100% of income from government
  • United Community Action Network: 82% of income from government
  • Midcoast Watersheds Council: 76% of income from government
  • Calapooia Watershed Council: 57% of income from government
  • Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council: 49% of income from government
  • Coos Watershed Association: 44% of income from government
  • Long Tom Watershed Council: 39% of income from government
  • South Santiam Watershed Council: 38% of income from government
  • Clackamas River Basin Council Inc: 36% of income from government
  • Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership: 29% of income from government
  • Transition Projects Inc: 29% of income from government
  • Oregon Food Bank: 21% of income from government
  • The Wetlands Conservancy Inc: 18% of income from government
  • Mystic River Watershed Association Inc: 18% of income from government
  • Farmers Conservation Alliance: 15% of income from government
  • Ecotrust: 14% of income from government
  • Midstate Electric Cooperative Inc: 11% of income from government
  • Forth Mobility Fund: 7% of income from government
  • Rose Community Development Corporat: 1% of income from government
  • Wasco Electric Cooperative Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Central Electric Cooperative: 0% of income from government
  • Bird Alliance of Oregon Inc: 0% of income from government
  • Umatilla Electric Cooperative: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
7get no government money at all
32report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
9rely on government for over half their income
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 225 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 Bonneville Environmental’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