· Private foundation
Deer Creek Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $2k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $75k
- $50k–250k11 grants · $1.3M
- $250k+1 grant · $1.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ARCH CITY DEFENDERS | $1,000,000 |
| EARTHJUSTICE | $200,000 |
| CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER | $200,000 |
| THE JOHN MUIR PROJECT OF THE EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE | $180,000 |
| TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC | $155,000 |
| CRAG LAW CENTER | $115,000 |
| BEYOND NUCLEAR | $110,000 |
| ST LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE | $100,000 |
| CENTER FOR PROGRESSIVE REFORM | $75,000 |
| COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP | $60,000 |
| VERIFIED VOTING FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| FREE AND FAIR LITIGATION GROUP | $45,000 |
| NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER | $30,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 71% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
Which US states its grants reach
How this is measured
Where the work is directed
The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.
About 6% of Deer Creek Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +43% since the first grant, against +7% for those funded once.
23 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- ADARCHCITY DEFENDERS5× · 2020–2024 · $2.2M · revenue +58%
EARTHJUSTICE5× · 2020–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +16%- CACONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER5× · 2020–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +1%
Funded once
- GAGovernment Accountability Projectone grant, 2020 · $80k · revenue +15%
- LSLONE STAR LEGAL AIDone grant, 2023 · $75k · revenue +7%
CANDIDone grant, 2020 · $2k · revenue -4%
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.
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.
CIVIL LIBERTIES DEFENSE CENTER (CLDC) educates the general public about their rights and privileges under the US Constitution and provides free legal support to climate and social justice activists.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
The environmental law & policy center (elpc) is the midwest's leading public interest environmental legal advocacy and ecobusiness innovation organization, and among the nation's leaders. we develop and lead successful strategic…
Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.
Public interest research and litigation in the general area of environmental protection.
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,…
The federation for american immigration reform's (fair) mission is to educate the public about the economic, sociological, environmental, demographic and other effects of mass immigration to the united states.
Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
To research and develop centrist policy ideas.
How this is measured
22 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. 22 of the 27 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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 ARCHCITY DEFENDERS ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR PROGRESSIVE REFORM INC ↗
- Who funds Verified Voting Foundation ↗
- Who funds CRAG LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS ↗
- Who funds BEYOND NUCLEAR ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Committee to Bridge the Gap ↗
- Who funds ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INC ↗
- Who funds WILDEARTH GUARDIANS ↗
- Who funds CASCADIA WILDLANDS ↗
- Who funds ST LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FREE AND FAIR LITIGATION GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds Government Accountability Project ↗
- Who funds LONE STAR LEGAL AID ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER ↗
- Who funds CANDID ↗
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.
Open a dossier: The Schmidt Family Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Tides Foundation · New Venture Fund · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Equal Justice Works · The Nathan Cummings Foundation Inc · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Deer Creek Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Deer Creek Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Deer Creek Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Deer Creek Foundation 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.
Play a game based on Deer Creek’s filings →