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

· Public charity

Evergreen Collaborative

Research and education into policies to reduce the impacts of climate change.

$125k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Environment$284kCivil Rights$25k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $75k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$25,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$6.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION$50,000
MICHIGAN UNITED$25,000
VIRGINIA ORGANIZING$25,000
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY INNOVATION$15,000
MICHIGAN LCV EDUCATION FUND$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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 62% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Community Initiatives: $25k → 10%CLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATION: $39k → 10%Western Harlem Environmental Action Inc: $25k → 17%THE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT INC: $10k → 14%MICHIGAN UNITED: $25k → 9%MICHIGAN LCV EDUCATION FUND: $10k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY INNOVATION: $15k → 16%MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION: $50k → 21%The People's Justice Council: $25k → 16%Partnership For Southern Equity: $25k → 13%VIRGINIA ORGANIZING: $25k → 8%LAWYERS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT: $25k → 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.
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
Nature for Justice

To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.

Environment
3
Advocates for the Environment Inc

Advocates for the environment is organizaed to educate the public concerning the law and the environment, to provide low-cost legal services to the public and other nonprofit organizations, and to use legal means such as litigation to…

Civil Rights
4
Clean Fuels Michigan

To accelerate the transition to clean transportation in michigan. we advocate for the suite of alternative fuels including biofuels, hydrogen, propane, natural gas, and electric vehicles.

Community Improvement
5
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
6
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
7
Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology Inc

Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.

Science & Tech
8
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

Environment
9
Texas Campaign for the Environment

Empowering Texans to fight pollution through sustained grassroots organizing campaigns that shift corporate and governmental policy.

Environment
10
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
11
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
12
Greenlight Action

Greenlight action mobilizes grassroots power to get more clean energy projects built more quickly across the united states.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan League of Conservation Voters Education Fund; the most unlike its peers is Martha S Corner 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

12 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. 12 of the 13 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
5/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION: $50,000 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITIONCLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATION: $38,500 · EnvironmentCLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATIONWest Harlem Environmental Action Inc: $25,000 · EnvironmentWest Harlem Environmental Action IncINSTITUTE FOR ENERGY INNOVATION: $15,000 · EnvironmentINSTITUTE FOR ENERGY INNOVATIONThe Partnership Project Inc: $10,000 · EnvironmentThe Partnership Project IncMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $10,000 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUNDSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EnvironmentSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATIONLAWYERS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT INC: $25,000 · Community ImprovementLAWYERS FOR GOOD G…VIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC: $25,000 · Community ImprovementVIRGINIA ORGANIZIN…MICHIGAN UNITED: $25,000 · OtherMICHIGAN UNITEDMARTHA S CORNER INC: $25,000 · OtherMARTHA S CORNER IN…COMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $25,000 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY…PARTNERSHIP FOR SOUTHERN EQUITY: $25,000 · ReligionPARTNERSH…
Environment$158,500Community Improvement$50,000Other$50,000Philanthropy$25,000Religion$25,000

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 budgetMICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION: $50,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetCLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATION: $38,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLAWYERS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWest Harlem Environmental Action Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPARTNERSHIP FOR SOUTHERN EQUITY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR ENERGY INNOVATION: $15,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetThe Partnership Project Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

United States Energy …New Venture FundThe Energy FoundationNatural Resources Def…Amalgamated Charitabl…Silicon Valley Commun…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
United States Energy FoundationCA17.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Energy Foundation · New Venture Fund · The Energy Foundation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–50%
    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 Collaborative?

    Find your warmest path to Evergreen Collaborative 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 13 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 Collaborative’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