Skip to content
Environmental Defense Action Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Environmental Defense Action Fund

To advocate for legislation and policies that protect the environment.

$9.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$9.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Public Benefit$23MEnvironment$8.8MCivil Rights$230kFood & Nutrition$73kCommunity Improvement$30kEducation$10kHuman Services$10kScience & Tech$10k
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $19k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $143k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $210k
  • $250k+1 grant · $9.0M
$20,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
EDF ACTION VOTES INC$9,000,000
CLEAN ENERGY FOR AMERICA INC$110,000
THE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT ACTION FUND$100,000
TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE ACTION$25,000
Clean Energy Business Network LLC$23,485
NO ON 2117 COMMITTEE$20,000
NEO PHILANTHROPY INC$20,000
TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT$20,000
NM NATIVE VOTE$15,000
ARIZONA TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL$10,000
EEN ACTION INC$10,000
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC$7,000
NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL OF MAINE$6,000
NEVADA CONSERVATION LEAGUE$6,000
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 (FY22–24, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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%NAVA EDUCATION PROJECT: $10k → 14%Hispanic Access Foundation: $10k → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
WA
MN
NY
OR
NV
WY
IN
PA
CA
UT
CO
WV
VA
MD
AZ
NM
NC
DC
GA
TX
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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$28M · 25 repeat orgs$3.9M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +17% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

25 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 17 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
49

Total granted

$28M
$3.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+17%
0%

Still filing today

80%
78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $186k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentPublic BenefitCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesArts & CultureOther
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

  • TP
    The Partnership Project Action Fund
    5× · 2020–2025 · $472k · revenue +59%
  • OC
    OCEAN CONSERVANCY
    2× · 2020–2021 · $364k · revenue +45%
  • PE
    PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $291k · revenue +38%

Funded once

  • NC
    NEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTIONgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $1.0M · revenue +88%
  • KT
    KEEP THE LIGHTS ON
    one grant, 2023 · $450k
  • CA
    CONSERVE AND PROTECT OUR WATER
    one grant, 2024 · $280k · 54% of their budget
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
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
2
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
3
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
4
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…

—
5
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
6
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
7
Cleaner Economy Coalition Inc

Driving american jobs and competitiveness by leveraging our cleaner economy and enabling u.s. manufacturers to lead in advanced energy technologies.

—
8
Center for Environmental Accountability

The Center for Environmental Accountability (CEA) is a not-for-profit organization that educates Americans on the importance of transparency and accountability in environmental and energy policy. CEA's work is informed by its core…

Environment
9
American Conservation Coalition Inc

The american conservation coalition inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to building the conservative environmental movement.

Environment
10
Environmental Defense Action Fund

To advocate for legislation and policies that protect the environment.

Environment
11
Texas Clean Energy Coalition
—
12
American Common Ground Council Inc

ConservAmerica is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to the development and advancement of market based energy, environmental, and conservation policy.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Legislative Accountability 1. 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

69 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. 69 of the 81 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
65/69
Grantees still filing
35/69
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EDF ACTION VOTES INC: $20,415,000 · OtherEDF ACTION VOTES INCState of Arizona: $1,285,000 · OtherNEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION: $1,000,000 · Other+34 more: $1,747,527 · Other+34 moreLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $3,519,500 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF CONSE…WESTERN CONSERVATION ACTION: $675,000 · Civil RightsWESTERN CONSERV…THIRD WAY: $150,000 · Civil Rights+3 more: $105,000 · Civil RightsThe Partnership Project Action Fund: $471,798 · EnvironmentOCEAN CONSERVANCY: $363,510 · EnvironmentPENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL INC: $290,700 · EnvironmentClean Energy For America Education Fund: $250,000 · EnvironmentCLIMATE REALITY ACTION FUND: $250,000 · EnvironmentThe Partnership Project Inc: $200,000 · EnvironmentClean Energy For America Inc: $110,000 · EnvironmentCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA: $100,000 · Environment+19 more: $421,000 · EnvironmentAB FOUNDATION: $195,000 · Public BenefitTAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE ACTION: $55,000 · Public BenefitCLEAN AIR ACTION FUND: $45,000 · Public BenefitNEO Philanthropy Inc: $20,000 · Public Benefit+2 more: $20,000 · Public BenefitAMERICAN INDEPENDENT MEDIA: $100,000 · Arts & CultureSEAFOOD HARVESTERS OF AMERICA EDUCATION: $30,000 · Community ImprovementAmerica Votes: $15,275 · Community ImprovementLONG ISLAND CITIZENS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $10,000 · Community ImprovementFEDERATION OF SOUTHERN COOPERATIVES: $22,500 · Food & Nutrition
Other$24,447,527Civil Rights$4,449,500Environment$2,457,008Public Benefit$335,000Arts & Culture$100,000Community Improvement$55,275Food & Nutrition$22,500

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 budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $3,519,500 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetNEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION: $1,000,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetWESTERN CONSERVATION ACTION: $675,000 over 4y, 24% of budgetThe Partnership Project Action Fund: $471,798 over 5y, 3.1% of budgetOCEAN CONSERVANCY: $363,510 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL INC: $290,700 over 5y, 4.6% of budgetCONSERVE AND PROTECT OUR WATER: $280,000 over 1y, 54% of budgetClean Energy For America Education Fund: $250,000 over 1y, 60% of budgetCLIMATE REALITY ACTION FUND: $250,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetThe Partnership Project Inc: $200,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetAB FOUNDATION: $195,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetTHIRD WAY: $150,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetClean Energy For America Inc: $110,000 over 1y, 35% of budgetCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA: $100,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetAMERICAN INDEPENDENT MEDIA: $100,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $80,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEvangelical Environmental Network: $77,500 over 3y, 4.7% of budgetBUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOUNDATION: $61,000 over 3y, 11% of budgetWESTERN CITIZENS PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION: $60,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetPROGRESSNOW NEW MEXICO: $50,000 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetREP ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 3y, 7.5% of budgetCLEAN AIR ACTION FUND: $45,000 over 2y, 9.3% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $40,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE VIRGINIA CLIMATE PROGRAM: $35,542 over 1y, 8.5% of budgetTHE FARMERS EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICAROCKY MOUNTAIN DIVISION: $35,500 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetNM NATIVE VOTE: $35,000 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $34,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLATINO VICTORY PROJECT: $33,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetMI FAMILIA EN ACCION: $30,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetLegislative Accountability 1: $30,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetVote Yes on 113: $30,000 over 1y, 21% of budgetSEAFOOD HARVESTERS OF AMERICA EDUCATION: $30,000 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO: $30,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetNatural Resources Council of Maine Inc: $30,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $25,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetENVIRONMENT AMERICA INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO EDUCATION FUND: $25,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetPROGRESSIVE STATE LEADERS COMMITTEE INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFEDERATION OF SOUTHERN COOPERATIVES: $22,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPENNENVIRONMENT INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetTexas Campaign for the Environment Fund: $20,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $17,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBONNEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION: $16,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmerica Votes: $15,275 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMINORITIES IN AQUACULTURE: $15,000 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetSEAFOOD HARVESTER OF AMERICA: $15,000 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetGround Game Texas: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetRenew Oregon Action Fund: $10,000 over 1y, 4.9% 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.

Environmental Defense…Resources Legacy FundEnergy Action FundSixteen Thirty FundThe Partnership Proje…United States Energy …Western Conservation …League of Conservatio…Western Conservation …The Wilderness SocietyPatagoniaorgFund for a Better Fut…
Environmental Defense Fund IncorporatedNY56.5× affinity26 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · Resources Legacy Fund · Energy Action Fund · Sixteen Thirty Fund · The Partnership Project Inc · United States Energy Foundation · Western Conservation Action · League of Conservation Voters Inc · Western Conservation Foundation · The Wilderness Society · Patagoniaorg · Fund for a Better Future Inc

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 Environmental Defense Action Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Environmental Defense Action Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • Bonneville Environmental Foundation: 100% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
8report 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.

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 81 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 Environmental Defense Action’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