Skip to content
Chalten Trust at a glance

· Public charity

Chalten Trust

Fighting the environmental crisis by raising awareness of the current environmental crisis; protecting biodiversity and climate resilience through land preservation and restoration; defending and supporting democracy and environmental activism; lobbying and other advocacy in support of these issues; and making grants to other nonprofit…

$2.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$2.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

99% of Chalten Trust’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Marin Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

3
’22
1
’23
7
’24
2
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Environment$6.2MPhilanthropy$45kCivil Rights$20k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
  • $250k+1 grant · $2.8M
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$118M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$2,800,000
VOTEWATER INC$10,000
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC$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 (FY22–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $2.8M → 8%VENTURA CITZENS FOR HILLSIDE PRESERVATION INC: $10k → 10%ACTIVATE AMERICA: $200k → 10%LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $20k → 14%VOTEWATER INC: $10k → 10%RAINCOAST CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $200k → 9%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE: $45k → 5%MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $2.7M → 8%ACTIVATE AMERICA: $20k → 10%LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $10k → 14%VOTEWATER INC: $10k → 10%MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $2.4M → 8%CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS: $15k → 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.

24%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$270k · 3 repeat orgs$845k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$270k
$845k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+34%

Still filing today

67%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentCivil RightsAnimalsPhilanthropyInternationalOther
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

  • AA
    ACTIVATE AMERICA
    2× · 2022–2024 · $220k
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $30k · revenue 0%
  • VI
    VOTEWATER INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $20k · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • REWILDgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $515k · revenue +41%
  • RC
    RAINCOAST CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $200k · revenue 0% · 40% of their budget
  • CE
    Cottonwood Environmental Law Centergraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $75k · revenue +26%
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
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
3
California Environmental Voters Education Fund

ENVIROVOTERS ED FUND is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the quality of the environment for all Californians. ENVIROVOTERS ED FUND works to build the capacity of environmental organizations by developing and providing…

Environment
4
Wildcoast

The mission of wildcoast is to conserve coastal and marine ecosystems and address climate change through natural solutions. our staff is dedicated to conserving threatened and endangered coastlines and wildlife in california and mexico.…

Environment
5
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
6
Washington Wild

Washington wild protects and restores wild lands and waters in washington state through advocacy, education and civic engagement.

Animals
7
Cascade Climate Inc

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

Environment
8
Rogue Climate

Rogue Climate's mission is to empower Southern Oregon communities most impacted by climate change including low-income, rural, youth, seniors & communities of color, to win climate justice by organizing for clean energy, sustainable jobs &…

Education
9
California Foundation on the Environment & the Economy

The mission of the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy is to convene broad roundtable dialogues in the areas of energy, water, transportation, telecommunications and technology, housing, and circular economy. Our…

Environment
10
Center for Environmental Law & Policy

The Center for Environmental Law & Policy is a statewide organization whose mission is to protect, preserve and restore Washington's waters through education, advocacy, policy reform, and public interest litigation.

Environment
11
CalWild

The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.

—
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rewild; the most unlike its peers is Soar Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 12 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $7,891,106 · PhilanthropyMARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION+2 more: $244,500 · PhilanthropyREWILD: $515,000 · AnimalsACTIVATE AMERICA: $220,000 · OtherVENTURA CITZENS FOR HILLSIDE PRESERVATION INC: $10,000 · OtherCottonwood Environmental Law Center: $75,000 · EnvironmentVOTEWATER INC: $20,000 · EnvironmentSOAR INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $30,000 · Civil RightsCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS: $15,000 · Civil Rights314ACTION: $20,000 · International
Philanthropy$8,135,606Animals$515,000Other$230,000Environment$105,000Civil Rights$45,000International$20,000

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 budgetMARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $7,891,106 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetREWILD: $515,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetRAINCOAST CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $200,000 over 1y, 40% of budgetCottonwood Environmental Law Center: $75,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF JACKSON HOLE: $44,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetVOTEWATER INC: $20,000 over 2y, 4.9% of budget314ACTION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS: $15,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSOAR INC: $10,000 over 1y, 14% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Chalten Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chalten Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%13%28%50%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
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Chalten’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