Skip to content
Environmental Integrity Project at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Environmental Integrity Project

ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT is organized for charitable and educational purposes -- engaging in research and public education on issues of environmental protection and preservation of natural resources

$65k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$40k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$720kEducation$48k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$40,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$4.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK$40,000
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER$25,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 62% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%FRACTRACKER ALLIANCE: $15k → 16%EARTHJUSTICE: $45k → 10%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $30k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PERMIAN BASIN: $48k → 16%POTOMAC RIVERKEEPER NETWORK: $50k → 14%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $25k → 21%APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES: $25k → 18%HEALTHY GULF: $18k → 23%CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK: $52k → 8%CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK: $44k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE FOUNDATION: $30k → 19%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $30k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-PERMIAN BASIN: $20k → 16%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $25k → 21%APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES: $25k → 18%CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK: $27k → 8%CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK: $40k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE FOUNDATION: $30k → 19%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER: $25k → 10%CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK: $27k → 8%CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK: $40k → 11%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER: $25k → 10%CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK: $21k → 8%TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $20k → 10%CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK: $21k → 8%TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: $10k → 10%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

PA
CA
WV
MD
NC
DC
LA
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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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

+70%
+77%

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.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentEducationOther
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

  • CC
    CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $272k · revenue +232%
  • TU
    The University of Texas Law School Foundation
    2× · 2021–2022 · $60k · revenue +140%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $60k · revenue +70%

Funded once

  • PR
    Potomac Riverkeeper Network
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue -8%
  • EARTHJUSTICEgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $45k · revenue +82%
  • HG
    HEALTHY GULF
    one grant, 2022 · $18k · revenue -28%
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
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
Texas Clean Energy Coalition
—
7
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
8
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,…

—
9
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
10
Policy Action for a Clean Tomorrow Inc

Clean Tomorrow advances policies that reduce climate emissions by turning policy ambition into action. We work to catalyze rapid change that will accelerate the innovation and growth of clean energy.

Environment
11
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment
12
Tennessee Clean Water Network

To identify, prevent, and remedy water pollution statewide through a network of allies and resources.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment Texas Research and Policy Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is University of Maryland Baltimore Foundation Inc. 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

11 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. 11 of the 12 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK INC: $271,775 · EnvironmentCHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK INCAPPALACHIAN VOICES: $50,000 · EnvironmentAPPALACHIAN VOICESAPPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES INC: $50,000 · EnvironmentAPPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES INCPotomac Riverkeeper Network: $50,000 · EnvironmentPotomac Riverkeeper NetworkEARTHJUSTICE: $45,000 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICETexas Campaign for the Environment: $30,000 · EnvironmentTexas Campaign for the EnvironmentHEALTHY GULF: $18,000 · Environment+1 more: $15,000 · EnvironmentThe University of Texas Law School Foundation: $60,000 · EducationThe University of…UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE FOUNDATION INC: $60,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF MAR…University of Texas of the Permian Basin: $68,000 · OtherUniversity of Tex…ENVIRONMENT TEXAS RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC: $50,000 · OtherENVIRONMENT TEXAS…
Environment$529,775Education$120,000Other$118,000

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 budgetCHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK INC: $271,775 over 8y, 1.8% of budgetThe University of Texas Law School Foundation: $60,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE FOUNDATION INC: $60,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAPPALACHIAN VOICES: $50,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetAPPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES INC: $50,000 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetPotomac Riverkeeper Network: $50,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $45,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTexas Campaign for the Environment: $30,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetHEALTHY GULF: $18,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetFRACTRACKER ALLIANCE: $15,000 over 1y, 1.4% 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.

PatagoniaorgTides FoundationRockefeller Family Fu…The Energy FoundationNatural Resources Def…Environmental Defense…United States Energy …Network for GoodVanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
PatagoniaorgCA19.4× 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 · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · United States Energy Foundation · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • University of Maryland Baltimore Foundation Inc: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 12 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Environmental Integrity Project’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