Loading…
· Public charity
ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT
Eip promotes more effective enforcement of environmental policies.
$65k
Granted FY2024
2
Grants
2
Communities
$40k
Largest
01What you fund
0185% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Environment$530kEducation$120kOther$118k
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
2018
—
2019
mid-atlantic partnership
2020
—
2021
—
2022
gas watchwatch tracktrack relevantrelevant datadata pointsmid-atlantic partnershipoil gas
2023
clean
2024
clean
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 2 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$40,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$4.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
- CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK$40,000
- ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER$25,000
02The need
04
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:
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13% — the area typically sits at 10%. 62% of your 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.
83%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$640k · 8 repeat orgs$128k to everyone else
8 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
8
4
Total granted
$640k
$128k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+9%
+123%
Still filing today
75%
100%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
EnvironmentEducationOther
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
- CCCHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK8× · 2017–2024 · $272k · revenue +10%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE FOUNDATION2× · 2020–2021 · $60k · revenue +1%
- TUTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION2× · 2021–2022 · $60k · revenue +9%
Funded once
- PRPOTOMAC RIVERKEEPER NETWORKone grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +15%
EARTHJUSTICEgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $45k · revenue +57%- HGHEALTHY GULFgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $18k · revenue +123%
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.
1
Texas Clean Energy Coalition
—
2
Texas Campaign for the Environment Fund
Our mission is to engage people and communities through face-to-face public education, grassroots organizing and action-oriented research for a cleaner and healthier Texas.
Housing & Shelter
3
Environmental Law Institute
To advance effective law and governance systems for environmental protection by providing information, publications, training courses, seminars, research and policy recommendations in a manner that engages and empowers leaders and…
Environment
4
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,…
—
5
Environmental Defenders
we provide the community with educational programs and volunteer action on pollution prevention, sustainable land use and energy and natural resource conservation.We advocate policies which protect drinking water supplies and conserve land…
Environment
6
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
7
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
8
Center for Environmental Accountability
The Center for Environmental Accountability (CEA) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote transparency, excellence, and accountability in environmental policy and fidelity to the rule of law. Its commitment to a clean…
Environment
9
Environment Now
—
10
Clean Air Council
Clean Air Council is a publicly supported environmental organization serving Pennsylvania and surrounding regions. It is dedicated to protecting and defending everyones right to breathe clean air.
Environment
11
Environmental Law Foundation
Environmental Law Foundation's (ELF) mission is to protect the environment, communities, and consumers against harmful toxics and other environmental harms. Our work consistently improves environmental quality for those most at risk by…
Crime & Legal
12
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
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment Texas Research and Policy Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is The University of Texas Law School. 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
11 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
10/11
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Environment$529,775Education$120,000Other$118,000
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 CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER ↗
- Who funds POTOMAC RIVERKEEPER NETWORK ↗
- Who funds APPALACHIAN VOICES ↗
- Who funds APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT ↗
- Who funds HEALTHY GULF ↗
- Who funds FRACTRACKER ALLIANCE ↗
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.
PatagoniaorgCA19.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · Tides Foundation · Rockefeller Family Fund Inc · The Energy Foundation · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · United States Energy Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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: APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
medium risk
~5 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 6 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
6 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +69% since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 550781483 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 APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES, 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
- WatchFinancial stability— Roughly 5 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 3% 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 Environmental Integrity Project?
Find your warmest path to Environmental Integrity Project 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.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines