· Public charity
Environmental Federation of California Earthshare California
The primary purpose of the organization is to broaden its affiliates' (501(c)(3) organizations) financial support by obtaining access to and coordinating participation in corporate and governmental payroll deduction fundraising campaigns.
Read this first · the figures below need context
100% of Environmental Federation of California Earthshare California’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Earthshare, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| EARTHSHARE | $37,415 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 85% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein 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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +25% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- TSTHE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION5× · 2017–2024 · $80k · revenue +107%
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC5× · 2017–2024 · $64k · revenue +41%- MLMountain Lion Foundation2× · 2017–2023 · $24k · revenue +8%
Funded once
- CNCalifornia Native Plant Societyone grant, 2023 · $14k · revenue -5%
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $13k · revenue +79%- FOFRIENDS OF THE RIVER FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $12k · revenue +19%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
The organization protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy and legal action.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
California Coastkeeper Alliance unites Waterkeeper programs statewide to fight for swimmable, fishable, and drinkable waters for all Californians.
The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Gfa works in partnership with and on behalf of the greater farallones and cordell bank national marine sanctuaries to preserve, monitor, research, educate about and enhance these invaluable marine resources.
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
The mission of wildcoast is to conserve coastal and marine ecosystems and address climate change through natural solutions. our staff is dedicated to conserving threatened and endangered coastlines and wildlife in california and mexico.…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated and the most unlike its peers is Rails to Trails Conservancy. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 42 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
23 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds EARTHSHARE ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee Inc ↗
- Who funds Mountain Lion Foundation ↗
- Who funds Bay Area Ridge Trail Council ↗
- Who funds GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds HEAL THE BAY ↗
- Who funds California Native Plant Society ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds ANZA-BORREGO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE RIVER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Rainforest Action Network ↗
- Who funds Save The Bay ↗
- Who funds Baykeeper ↗
- Who funds Californians Against Waste Foundation ↗
- Who funds RAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds SAVE OUR SHORES ↗
- Who funds GREENBELT ALLIANCEPEOPLE FOR OPEN SPACE ↗
- Who funds SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE EARTH ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Resources Legacy Fund · The Rose Foundation for Communities the Environment · Ibm International Foundation · Leonardo Dicaprio Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Marin Community Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · The San Francisco Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust 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 organization Environmental Federation of California Earthshare California 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 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.