Skip to content
Clean Water Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Clean Water Fund

CLEAN WATER FUND promotes clean, safe, and affordable water, empowering diverse groups of people to work together for changes that improve their lives, focused on health, environmental and community problems.

$348k
Granted FY2023
12
Grants FY2023
4
States reached
$45k
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, FY2018 to 2023.

Environment$1.4MCivil Rights$93kHealth$85kCrime & Legal$60kHuman Services$51kCommunity Improvement$49kHousing & Shelter$14kInternational$12kOther$0
02FY2023 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $291,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $347,999 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $56,999 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 · FY2023

  • Under $10k2 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $276k
$25,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$5.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTRO DE APOYO FAMILIAR$45,000
IRONBOUND COMMUNITY CORPORATION$44,792
NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE$42,417
CLINTON HILL COMMUNITY ACTION$29,583
FRIENDS OF ANACOSTIA PARK$27,000
CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION$25,000
RIDGE TO REEFS$25,000
CLINTON HILL COMMUNITY ACTION$15,208
SOUTH BALTIMORE COMMUNITY LAND TR$12,000
SALEM ALLIANCE FOR THE ENVIROMENT$10,000
MOUNTAINSIDE EDUCATION AND ENRICH$8,000
COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUC$7,000
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 (FY21–23, $72k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%CENTRO DE APOYO FAMILIAR: $45k → 11%CENTRO DE APOYO FAMILIAR: $17k → 11%CENTRO DE APOYO DE FAMILIAR: $10k → 11%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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 25 repeat orgs$347k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +54% since the first grant, against +48% for those funded once.

25 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2023, 20 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
18

Total granted

$1.4M
$260k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
+48%

Still filing today

92%
72%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $87k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementCrime & LegalCivil RightsHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • CLIMATE XCHANGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $183k · revenue +131% · 25% of their budget
  • BF
    BETTER FUTURE PROJECT INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $133k · revenue +20%
  • IC
    Ironbound Community Corporation
    5× · 2018–2023 · $100k · revenue +54%

Funded once

  • CE
    Children's Environmental Health Networkgraduated
    2× · 2017–2018 · $35k · revenue +66%
  • NW
    NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATIONgraduated
    2× · 2017–2018 · $33k · revenue +72%
  • EL
    ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $32k · revenue -47%
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 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
2
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.

Education
3
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…

—
4
Conservation Law Foundation Inc

Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…

Environment
5
Science & Environmental Health Network

In service to communities, the earth and future generations, the science and environmental health network forges science, ethics, and law into tools for action.

Environment
6
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
7
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
8
Environment Now
—
9
Eastern Environmental Law Center Inc

Legal assistance to nonprofit organizations working to solve environmental problems that threaten the people, natural resources and communities in the new jersey and tri-state region.

Environment
10
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
11
Nature for Justice

To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.

Environment
12
Center for Sustainable Economy

Promoting economic sustainability

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc; the most unlike its peers is Anacostia Coordinating Council 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

47 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. 47 of the 49 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)
19
Early backer (in before they grew)
43/47
Grantees still filing
35/47
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CLIMATE XCHANGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INC: $183,000 · EnvironmentCLIMATE XCHANGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INCBETTER FUTURE PROJECT INC: $133,000 · EnvironmentBETTER FUTURE PROJECT INCNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $75,000 · EnvironmentNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INCTOXICS ACTION CENTER INC: $57,500 · EnvironmentTOXICS ACTION CENTER INCNEW JERSEY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $52,667 · EnvironmentNEW JERSEY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUC…ENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $44,500 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INCSOUTH WARD ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE: $36,700 · EnvironmentAcadia Center: $36,500 · EnvironmentMASSACHUSETTS INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHT: $25,000 · Environment+6 more: $69,720 · Environment+6 moreIronbound Community Corporation: $100,475 · OtherIronbound Community CorporationANACOSTIA COORDINATING COUNCIL INC: $96,408 · OtherANACOSTIA COORDINATING COUNCIL INCCLINTON HILL COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $79,583 · OtherCLINTON HILL COMMUNITY ACTION INCWEST HARLEM ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION: $40,000 · OtherWEST HARLEM ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONENVIRONMENTAL MASSACHUSETTS RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER: $37,000 · OtherENVIRONMENTAL MASSACHUSETTS RESEARC…CHOZEN CONSULTING LLC: $30,000 · OtherCHOZEN CONSULTING LLCCONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION: $25,000 · OtherRIDGE TO REEFS INC: $25,000 · OtherNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $33,000 · OtherNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION+10 more: $87,189 · Other+10 moreDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE INC: $99,000 · Crime & LegalDISTRICT …ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION: $32,200 · Crime & LegalENVIRONME…FAIR SHAKE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL SERVICES: $15,445 · Crime & LegalFAIR SHAK…NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATION FUND INC: $62,500 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW JERSEY EDUCATION FUND: $35,200 · Civil RightsCOMMUNITY LABOR UNITED INC: $22,500 · Civil RightsCENTRO DE APOYO FAMILIAR: $71,500 · Human ServicesMASSACHUSETTS CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK INC: $10,000 · Human ServicesFAR SOUTHEAST FAMILY STRENGTENING: $5,500 · Human ServicesALTERNATIVES FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT INC: $45,000 · Community ImprovementWashington Parks & People: $16,000 · Community ImprovementProgressive National Baptist Conv Comm Dev Corp: $7,500 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITIES UNITED INC: $6,400 · Community ImprovementChildren's Environmental Health Network: $35,000 · HealthAMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION: $30,000 · Health
Environment$713,587Other$553,655Crime & Legal$146,645Civil Rights$120,200Human Services$87,000Community Improvement$74,900Health$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 budgetCLIMATE XCHANGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INC: $183,000 over 4y, 25% of budgetBETTER FUTURE PROJECT INC: $133,000 over 4y, 8.1% of budgetIronbound Community Corporation: $100,475 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE INC: $99,000 over 4y, 7.1% of budgetANACOSTIA COORDINATING COUNCIL INC: $96,408 over 4y, 14% of budgetCLINTON HILL COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $79,583 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $75,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCENTRO DE APOYO FAMILIAR: $71,500 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetNEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATION FUND INC: $62,500 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetTOXICS ACTION CENTER INC: $57,500 over 5y, 1.9% of budgetNEW JERSEY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $52,667 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetALTERNATIVES FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT INC: $45,000 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $44,500 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL MASSACHUSETTS RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER: $37,000 over 4y, 10% of budgetAcadia Center: $36,500 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW JERSEY EDUCATION FUND: $35,200 over 3y, 15% of budgetChildren's Environmental Health Network: $35,000 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $33,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION: $32,200 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetAMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION: $30,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetRIDGE TO REEFS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHT: $25,000 over 4y, 13% of budgetCOMMUNITY LABOR UNITED INC: $22,500 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetWard 8 Woods Conservancy Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetOUR CLIMATE EDUCATION FUND: $18,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetWashington Parks & People: $16,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetFAIR SHAKE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL SERVICES: $15,445 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetTHE ALLIANCE FOR BUSINESS LEADERSHIP INC: $13,000 over 3y, 3.2% of budgetSOUTH BALTIMORE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST INC: $12,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK INC: $10,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetCARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE: $10,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetGREENROOTS INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetSALEM ALLIANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT INC: $10,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetANACOSTIA WATERFRONT TRUST: $8,500 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetMOUNTAINSIDE EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT INC: $8,000 over 1y, 6.7% of budgetCOALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION FUND INC: $7,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF WATERBURY INC: $7,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF NEW HAVEN INC: $7,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHOWARD ECOWORKS INC: $6,720 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCOMMUNITIES UNITED INC: $6,400 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetFAR SOUTHEAST FAMILY STRENGTENING: $5,500 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Barr FoundationPatagoniaorgUnited States Energy …The New World Foundat…Boston Foundation IncSocial and Environmen…Amalgamated Charitabl…The John Merck FundCedar Tree FoundationImpactassetsincWindward FundGreater Washington Co…
Barr FoundationMA30.4× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Barr Foundation · Patagoniaorg · United States Energy Foundation · The New World Foundation · Boston Foundation Inc · Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The John Merck Fund · Cedar Tree Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Windward Fund · Greater Washington Community 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 Clean Water Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Clean Water Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 130%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 8%
  • Ironbound Community Corporation: 100% of income from government
  • Ridge to Reefs Inc: 33% of income from government
  • Neighborhood Housing Services of New Haven Inc: 13% of income from government
  • South Baltimore Community Land Trust Inc: 11% of income from government
  • Neighborhood Housing Services of Waterbury Inc: 8% of income from government
  • Howard Ecoworks Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Clinton Hill Community Action Inc: 6% of income from government
  • Salem Alliance for the Environment Inc: 5% of income from government
  • Greenroots Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Community Labor United Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
13get no government money at all
9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely 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 Clean Water Fund?

Find your warmest path to Clean Water Fund 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 49 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Clean Water’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