Skip to content

· Public charity

Earth Day Network Inc

The mission of earth day network, inc.

$316k
Granted FY2023
2
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$53k
Largest
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 2023.

Environment$613k
02FY2023 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $62,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $316,188 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $253,688 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

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $53k
$52,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TREES FOR THE FUTURE$52,500
REDWOOD FOREST FOUNDATION$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 (FY18–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 50% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $10k → 9%REDWOOD FOREST FOUNDATION: $10k → 18%Texas Trees Foundation: $5k → 14%NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $10k → 9%REDWOOD FOREST FOUNDATION: $5k → 18%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $402k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

East Asia and the Pacific$266k · 66% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: MANGROVE TREE PLANTING IN SUNDERBUNS, WEST BENGAL INDIA FOR THE CANOPY PROJECT · TREE PLANTING KHULA BANGLADESH

North America (Canada and Mexico)$118k · 29% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: PLASTIC POLUTION PROJECT · CANADIAN NATIONAL GREENING PROGGRAM

Sub-Saharan Africa$18k · 4% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: TREE PLANTING GREWCOCK IHOFA VOHITSARA BIORESERVE

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.
03Its 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
Farmers for Forests Inc

The mission of Farmers for Forests (F4F) is to restore and protect green cover in India in close partnership with farmers and indigenous communities. All the on-ground work is enabled by AI and multi-spectral drone technology and satellite…

Human Services
2
Reforest the Tropics Incorporated

Development of programs to offset personal and corporate carbon emissions through reforestation in the tropics.

Environment
3
Reforest Our Future

MISSION PURPOSE - Reforest our Future is an independent public charity whose specific purposes both domestically and abroad are as follows: To advocate for and implement reforestation activities. To engage with and educate the public about…

Environment
4
Ctrees

To track carbon in every tree on the planet and to deliver science-based geospatial data for enabling natural climate solutions at all sacles.

Environment
5
Center for Sustainable Economy

Promoting economic sustainability

Environment
6
Tree Foundation Inc

Sponsor education and conservation projects to save and protect trees and forest ecosystems.

Education
7
TreeFolks Inc

Empowering central Texans to build stronger communities through planting and caring for trees.

—
8
Global Forest Generation

Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…

Environment
9
The Foundation for Sustainable Forests Inc
Philanthropy
10
American Forests

Protection and expansion of threatened urban and wildland forest ecosystems. See Part III

Environment
11
Applied Ecological Institute Inc

Aei is a non profit ideation collaborative studio creating globalscale, ecological based solutions for a climate positive future.

Environment
12
Rainforest Foundation Inc

The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Trees for the Future Inc; the most unlike its peers is Institute for Environmental Innovation. 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

8 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TREES FOR THE FUTURE INC: $540,300 · EnvironmentTREES FOR THE FUTURE INCInstitute for Environmental Innovation: $33,000 · EnvironmentInstitute for Environmental Innovation+1 more: $15,000 · EnvironmentNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $20,000 · Recreation & SportsTEXAS TREES FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Other
Environment$588,300Recreation & Sports$20,000Other$5,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTREES FOR THE FUTURE INC: $540,300 over 7y, 4.4% of budgetNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetREDWOOD FOREST FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTEXAS TREES FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

American Online Giving Foundation IncDE7.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Earth Day Network Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Earth Day Network Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%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
    2get 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.

    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 5 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 $444k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Earth Day Network’s filings →

    More from the funding graph