Skip to content
Center on Race Poverty & the Environment at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Center on Race Poverty & the Environment

CRPE is a national environmental justice organization providing legal, organizing, and technical assistance to grassroots groups in low-income communities and communities of color.

$223k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$97k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$1.3MCommunity Improvement$363kHuman Services$285kHealth$254kCivil Rights$152kCrime & Legal$116kArts & Culture$97kRecreation & Sports$94kOther$0
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $172k
$75,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Wukchumni Tribe$97,445
Bear Mountain Recreation & Pa$75,000
Committee for a Better Arvin$33,400
Committee for A Better Shafte$16,700
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 (FY17–24, $325k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 92% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Committee for a Better Arvin: $33k → 18%Committee for a Better Arvin: $30k → 18%Comite Progreso de Lamont: $30k → 18%LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTIC: $62k → 19%Committee for a Better Arvin: $20k → 18%Comite Progreso de Lamont: $20k → 18%LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTIC: $42k → 19%LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTIC: $37k → 19%Leadership Counsel for J & A: $25k → 19%Calif for Pesticide Reform: $25k → 10%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.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.1M · 10 repeat orgs$546k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +472% since the first grant, against +50% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
7

Total granted

$2.1M
$546k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+472%
+50%

Still filing today

80%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentHealthCrime & LegalPhilanthropyArts & CultureHuman ServicesOther
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

  • PA
    Pesticide Action Network North America
    4× · 2017–2022 · $696k · revenue +14%
  • CW
    Community Water Center
    5× · 2017–2023 · $285k · revenue +248%
  • SA
    SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $222k · revenue +53%

Funded once

  • COMMUNITY INITIATIVESgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $363k · revenue +50%
  • LC
    LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
    one grant, 2023 · $97k · revenue +19%
  • AU
    Arvin Unified School District
    one grant, 2022 · $45k
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
California Coastkeeper dba California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Coastkeeper Alliance unites Waterkeeper programs statewide to fight for swimmable, fishable, and drinkable waters for all Californians.

Environment
2
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
3
Central California Environmental Justice Network

To uplift low-income communities of color in the San Joaquin Valley by ensuring access to clean air, water, land, and food sovereignty.

Environment
4
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy

CAUSE's mission is to build grassroots power to realize social, economic and environmental justice for the people of the Central Coast Region through policy research, leadership development, organizing and advocacy.

Community Improvement
5
Center for Community Advocacy

Provide Educational Programs, Health Services and Legal Services to Farm Workers at housing sites and throughout the Salinas Valley and promote improved living conditions.

—
6
California Environmental Justice Alliance

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…

Environment
7
California Environmental Voters

To increase public awareness of elected officials' performances on environmental issues, to influence decisions of public officials on environmental legislation and policy, and to engage in related social welfare activities to promote and…

Civil Rights
8
Cascade Climate Inc

To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.

Environment
9
Active San Gabriel Valley

Active San Gabriel Valley (ActiveSGV) is a community-based environmental advocacy and public health non-profit organization. Our mission is to promote a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley.

Community Improvement
10
California Donor Table

California Donor Table anchors a hub of donors, foundations, and community leaders. We pool together our resources to shape California into a truly democratic state that works for the people, not the powerful. Rooted in our commitment to…

Civil Rights
11
Taproot Earth

Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.

Environment
12
California Life Sciences Association

Clsa advances californias world-leading life sciences innovation ecosystem by advocating for effective national, state and local public policies and supporting entrepreneurs and life sciences businesses.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability; the most unlike its peers is Committee for a Better Arvin. 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

13 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. 13 of the 18 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
13/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Pesticide Action Network North America: $695,759 · EnvironmentPesticide Action Network North AmericaCommunity Water Center: $285,477 · EnvironmentCommunity Water CenterSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $222,455 · EnvironmentSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INCCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $363,406 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY INIT…TIDES CENTER: $191,245 · Human ServicesTIDES CENTERCommittee For A Better Arvin: $133,400 · Human ServicesCommittee For…SIERRA HEALTH FOUNDATION CENTER FOR HEALTH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: $131,254 · HealthSIERRA HEA…Cultiva La Salud: $122,455 · HealthCultiva La…Bear Mountain Recreation & Pa: $80,145 · OtherBear Moun…COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER SHAFTER: $66,700 · OtherCOMMITTEE…Arvin Unified School District: $45,322 · OtherArvin Uni…Bear Mountain Recreation & Pk: $14,285 · OtherBear Moun…TIDES ADVOCACY: $9,901 · OtherCRLA: $7,650 · OtherWUKCHUMNI TRIBE: $222,244 · Arts & CultureCENTER ON RACE POVERTY & THE ENVIRONMENT: $116,310 · Crime & LegalCALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE INC: $7,650 · Crime & LegalLEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: $97,445 · Civil Rights
Environment$1,203,691Philanthropy$363,406Human Services$324,645Health$253,709Other$224,003Arts & Culture$222,244Crime & Legal$123,960Civil Rights$97,445

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 budgetPesticide Action Network North America: $695,759 over 4y, 4.6% of budgetCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $363,406 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCommunity Water Center: $285,477 over 5y, 2.0% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $222,455 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWUKCHUMNI TRIBE: $222,244 over 2y, 47% of budgetTIDES CENTER: $191,245 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCommittee For A Better Arvin: $133,400 over 3y, 50% of budgetSIERRA HEALTH FOUNDATION CENTER FOR HEALTH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: $131,254 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetCultiva La Salud: $122,455 over 2y, 16% of budgetCENTER ON RACE POVERTY & THE ENVIRONMENT: $116,310 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetLEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: $97,445 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $9,901 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE INC: $7,650 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

The California Wellne…The California Endowm…Amalgamated Charitabl…The Schmidt Family Fo…Common Counsel Founda…Latino Community Foun…Sierra Health Foundat…The Keith Campbell Fo…Windward FundThe James Irvine Foun…Silicon Valley Commun…Vanguard Charitable E…
The California Wellness FoundationCA21.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The California Wellness Foundation · The California Endowment · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Common Counsel Foundation · Latino Community Foundation · Sierra Health Foundation Center for Health Program Management · The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment Inc · Windward Fund · The James Irvine Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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 Center on Race Poverty & the Environment funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Center on Race Poverty & the Environment. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Center on Race Poverty & the Environment?

    Find your warmest path to Center on Race Poverty & the Environment 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 18 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Center on Race Poverty & the Environment’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