Skip to content
Evergreen Action at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Evergreen Action

Advocate for and reform to climate policies at the national and state level.

$440k
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2024.

Environment$195kCivil Rights$135kPublic Benefit$105kEmployment$45k
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $185k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $250k
$25,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN UNITED$50,000
CLIMATE CABINET ACTION$50,000
RURAL UTAH PROJECT$50,000
MOVEMENT VOTER PROJECT$50,000
WORKING FAMILIES$50,000
WISCONSIN OPP COALITION$30,000
WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS$25,000
OUR LAND OUR RIGHTS$25,000
PENNSYLVANIA UNTIED$25,000
CONSERVATION VOTERS OF PA$25,000
PA ALLIANCE$25,000
CLIMATE EQUITY ACTION FUND$20,000
FLORIDA RISING$10,000
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 (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 58% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%MOVEMENT VOTER PROJECT: $50k → 12%CONSERVATION VOTERS OF PA: $25k → 12%PA ALLIANCE: $25k → 22%WORKING FAMILIES: $50k → 20%CLIMATE CABINET ACTION: $50k → 14%FLORIDA RISING: $10k → 15%OUR LAND OUR RIGHTS: $25k → 14%WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS: $25k → 10%WISCONSIN OPP COALITION: $30k → 10%RURAL UTAH PROJECT: $50k → 8%PENNSYLVANIA UNTIED: $25k → 22%AMERICA WORKS USA: $45k → 14%CLIMATE EQUITY ACTION FUND: $20k → 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

WI
MI
NY
MA
PA
UT
DC
FL
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 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
Partnership for Policy Integrity

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

Environment
2
Electoral Collective Action

Electoral Collective Action coordinates a broad-based coalition of existing entities active in the climate justice and community organizing space to raise public awareness and educational opportunities.

Civil Rights
3
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
4
Federation of State Conservation Voter Leagues

Maine Conservation Voters plays a critical role in turning public support for conservation into new laws to protect our air, land, water and wildlife. As a result of successful strategies, a focused policy agenda and sharp accountability…

—
5
Coalition for Dc Representation in Congress Education Fund

Founded in 1998, dc vote is a national citizen engagement and advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening democracy and securing equality for all in the district of columbia.

Education
6
Accion Politica Pcunista Dba Pcun

To promote civic participation.

Arts & Culture
7
Coalition for Green Capital D/B/a American Green Bank Consortium

Cgc operates as a nonprofit financial institution that invests directly and through partners to transform financial markets by using public and private investing to accelerate the deployment of projects that strengthen the grid, reduce…

Environment
8
States United Action

States united action is a nonpartisan section 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization with a mission to protect our elections and our democracy. (continued on schedule o)states united action advances election protection, holds democracy violators…

Civil Rights
9
Working Washington

We are workers, united across different industries to improve our working conditions and our lives. We come together as working people to build power through education, organizing, and enforcement. We work to raise and uphold standards in…

—
10
Electoral Collective

Electoral Collective coordinates a broad-based coalition of existing entities active in the climate justice and community organizing space to raise public awareness and educational opportunities.

Civil Rights
11
Congressional Progressive Caucus Center

CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS CENTER identifies and develops research-based, people-led solutions to build a more just, equitable, and resilient nation. Through educational programming and policy analysis, we bring together community…

Public Benefit
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wisconsin Opportunity Coalition Inc; the most unlike its peers is Rup 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

13 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. 13 of the 14 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
2/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CLIMATE CABINET ACTION: $50,000 · OtherCLIMATE CABINET ACTIONMICHIGAN UNITED: $50,000 · OtherMICHIGAN UNITEDALL HANDS ON DECK NETWORK INC: $50,000 · OtherALL HANDS ON DECK NETWORK INCRUP INC: $50,000 · OtherRUP INCAMERICA WORKS USA: $45,000 · OtherAMERICA WORKS USAWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $25,000 · OtherWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS INCConservation Voters of Pennsylvania: $25,000 · OtherConservation Voters of PennsylvaniaWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC: $50,000 · Civil RightsWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INCWISCONSIN OPPORTUNITY COALITION INC: $30,000 · Civil RightsWISCONSIN OPPORTUNITY COALITION I…PA ALLIANCE ACTION: $25,000 · Civil RightsPA ALLIANCE ACTIONPennsylvania United: $25,000 · Civil RightsPennsylvania UnitedFLORIDA RISING INC: $10,000 · Civil RightsFLORIDA RISING INCTHE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $25,000 · EnvironmentTHE OREGON…CLIMATE EQUITY ACTION FUND: $20,000 · EnvironmentCLIMATE EQ…
Other$295,000Civil Rights$140,000Environment$45,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCLIMATE CABINET ACTION: $50,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetRUP INC: $50,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICA WORKS USA: $45,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWISCONSIN OPPORTUNITY COALITION INC: $30,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetConservation Voters of Pennsylvania: $25,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetPA ALLIANCE ACTION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPennsylvania United: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $25,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetCLIMATE EQUITY ACTION FUND: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFLORIDA RISING INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundEnergy Action FundAmerica VotesTides AdvocacyTides FoundationOur American Future A…Way to Win Action Fun…All Hands on Deck Net…Pro-Democracy CampaignLeague of Conservatio…Open Society Action F…
Sixteen Thirty FundDC23.7× affinity9 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Energy Action Fund · America Votes · Tides Advocacy · Tides Foundation · Our American Future Action · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Pro-Democracy Campaign · League of Conservation Voters Inc · Open Society Action Fund 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 Evergreen Action funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Evergreen Action. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Evergreen Action?

    Find your warmest path to Evergreen Action through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 14 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 Evergreen 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