How much did ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY grant in FY2023?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 48% of ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

enviromental protection

2020

enviromental protection

2022

—

2023

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2023 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2023

$10k–50k3 grants · $40k
$50k–250k5 grants · $318k

$53,000

Median grant

States reached

$9.3M

Total assets

Largest grants

WORK ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL OF NEW JERSEY$100,000
CLEAN WATER FUND$60,000
TRI-STATE TRANSPORTATION CAMPAIGN$55,000
SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION$53,000
OCCIDENTAL ARTS AND ECOLOGY CENTER$50,000
COMMUNITY COALITION$15,000
WEST ATLANTA WATERSHED ALLIANCE INC$15,000
OREGON WILD$10,000

02The need

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY22–22, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16% — the area typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

22%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$220k · 5 repeat orgs$794k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2023, 3 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$220k

$466k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+55%

Still filing today

60%

55%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 8% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $328k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EnvironmentPublic BenefitHuman ServicesEducationPhilanthropyOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

PR
PENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC
2× · 2018–2020 · $82k · revenue +12%
EC
ENVIRONMENT COLORADO RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER
3× · 2018–2020 · $50k
CC
COMMUNITY COALITION
2× · 2022–2023 · $30k · revenue -33%

Funded once

EM
ENVIRONMENT MASSACHUSETTS RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER
one grant, 2018 · $132k · revenue -49%
EN
ENVIRONMENT NORTH CAROLINA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC
one grant, 2020 · $51k
SO
STUDENT ORGANIZING INCgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +366%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

Environment Georgia Research and Policy Center

The corporation is organized for the purpose of conducting public interest research, policy development, analysis, and education to protect the environment and people of Georgia, including, but not limited to, the quality of Georgia's air,…

—

Environmental Law and Policy Center of

Public interest environmental legal and policy advocacy and eco-business innovation organization working to improve environmental quality and protect our natural heritage.

Environment

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

Environment America Research and Policy

To protect america's air, water and open spaces by conducting research, civic engagement and public education on those issues.

Environment

Environment Washington Research & Policy Center Inc

Environment Washington Research and Policy Center is organized exclusively for charitable, public education, and environmental protection purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or corresponding…

—

World Environment Center Inc

WEC is a global, non-profit, non-advocacy organization whose mission is to advance sustainable development through the business strategies and operations of member companies in partnership with government, non-governmental organizations…

—

Environmental Action Research Center Inc

The purpose of this corporation is to engage in activities, including public education, research, issues advocacy, and other communications and activities to promote pro-environment ideas and policies.

Environment

Environment California Inc

The corporation is organized and operated exclusively for social welfare purposes. the corporations activities may include public education, research, litigation, and advocacy on issues affecting the environment and the public interest.

Environment

Environment Oregon Research and Policy Center Inc

The purpose of the corporation is to engage in public education within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and to protect the environment of Oregon. The corporation's activities may include public education,…

—

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

Texas Campaign for the Environment

Empowering Texans to fight pollution through sustained grassroots organizing campaigns that shift corporate and governmental policy.

Environment

Coalition for Green Capital

To halt climate change by accelerating investment in clean energy technologies.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment California Research and Policy Center and the most unlike its peers is Maryland Public Law Interest Project in. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the grantee network

25 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

20/25

Grantees still filing

14/25

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$482,232Environment$408,832Human Services$50,000Education$30,000Philanthropy$30,000Public Benefit$12,500

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

United States Energy FoundationCA31.6× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Energy Foundation · The Energy Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The Partnership Project Inc · National Wildlife Federation · Sierra Club · Pirg New Voters Project Inc · Environment New Jersey Research And · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Tides Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organisation ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

2get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: BLACK CHURCH FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

low risk

7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 463184561 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on BLACK CHURCH FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue held over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 23% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Environment America Research and Policy?

Find your warmest path to Environment America Research and Policy through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

25 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Environment America Research and Policy?

More from the funding graph

ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

25 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Environment America Research and Policy?

More from the funding graph