Skip to content
Food & Water Watch at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Food & Water Watch

FOOD & WATER WATCH conducts extensive research and public education to ensure the food and water we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced.

$404k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$105k
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 2025.

Environment$1.5MInternational$245kFood & Nutrition$135kPublic Benefit$119kArts & Culture$100k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $375,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $403,751 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $28,751 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $178k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $198k
$30,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$34M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRACK ACTION FUND$105,000
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC$92,500
NEW YORK COMMUNITIES ORGANIZING FUND INC$47,500
SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK$45,000
OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL$30,000
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC$25,000
WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS$10,000
HEALTHY GULF$10,000
CLEAN WATER 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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 83% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS: $10k → 9%CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT LAB EDUCATION FUND: $18k → 10%BIG ORGANIZING ACTION FUND: $90k → 10%FRACK ACTION FUND: $83k → 14%FRACK ACTION FUND: $105k → 16%CATSKILL MOUNTAIN KEEPER: $50k → 16%CLOUD MOUNTAIN FOUNDATION: $24k → 17%NEW YORK COMMUNITIES ORGANIZING FUND INC: $48k → 20%FOOD AND WATER ACTION FUND: $125k → 14%PSR FLORIDA CHAPTER CORP: $10k → 13%RETHINK ENERGY FLORIDA INC: $8k → 19%SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK: $45k → 17%PROGRESSNOW COLORADO: $25k → 12%SOLON CENTER FOR RESEARCH & PUBLISHING: $150k → 11%NO CMP CORRIDOR: $95k → 14%EOPA: $100k → 15%CATSKILL MOUNTAIN KEEPER: $50k → 16%CLOUD MONTAIN FOUNDATION: $23k → 17%NEW YORK COMMUNITIES ORGANIZING FUND INC: $48k → 20%OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL: $83k → 14%CATSKILL MOUNTAIN KEEPER: $42k → 16%CLOUD MOUNTAIN FOUNDATION: $6k → 17%NEW YORK COMMUNITIES ORGANIZING FUND: $43k → 20%OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL: $30k → 14%CATSKILL MOUNTAINKEEPER: $13k → 16%NY COMMUNITIES ORGANIZING FUND INC: $48k → 20%CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC: $25k → 14%NEW YORK COMMUNITIES ORGANIZING FUND INC: $40k → 20%CLEAN WATER FUND: $10k → 14%NEW YORK COMMUNITIES ORGANIZING FUND INC: $23k → 20%FOOD & WATER ACTION FUND: $125k → 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

ME
MT
NY
IA
CA
CO
AZ
DC
LA
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 8 repeat orgs$718k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +107% since the first grant, against -23% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
8

Total granted

$1.4M
$526k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+107%
-23%

Still filing today

100%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 49% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $193k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24’25
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementInternationalArts & CulturePublic BenefitAnimalsOther
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

  • NY
    New York Communities Organizing Fund Inc
    8× · 2017–2025 · $343k · revenue +107%
  • FW
    FOOD & WATER ACTION FUND
    2× · 2019–2021 · $250k · revenue +274%
  • SC
    Solon Center For Research And Publishing
    2× · 2019–2020 · $250k · revenue +524% · 35% of their budget

Funded once

  • TJ
    TRADE JUSTICE EDUCATION FUND
    one grant, 2021 · $245k · revenue -23% · 40% of their budget
  • NC
    NO CMP CORRIDOR
    one grant, 2020 · $95k
  • GA
    Green Advocacy Projectgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $90k · revenue +108%
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
Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech
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
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
4
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
5
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
6
Earthworks

The Corporation is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes. Earthworks is dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible mineral and energy development while seeking…

Public Benefit
7
Climate Rights International

CRI is an international climate and human rights monitoring and advocacy organization dedicated to preventing climate change and human rights abuses.

Environment
8
Cascade Climate Inc

To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.

Environment
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
Clean Future Action Fund Inc

To educate, lobby and advocate for policies that advance clean energy development and deployment.

Environment
11
Center for Resource Solutions

Center for Resource Solutions (CRS or the Organization) promotes policy and marketsolutions to advance sustainable energy. Through its Green-e certification programs, policy advocacy, educational outreach, and expert guidance on renewable…

Environment
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Science & Environmental Health Network; the most unlike its peers is Cloud Mountain Foundation. 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

18 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. 18 of the 22 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
8/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FOOD & WATER ACTION FUND: $250,000 · EnvironmentFOOD & WATER ACTION FUNDFRACK ACTION FUND INC: $188,333 · EnvironmentFRACK ACTION FUND INCCATSKILL MOUNTAINKEEPER INC: $155,400 · EnvironmentCATSKILL MOUNTAINKEEPER INCScience & Environmental Health Network: $45,000 · EnvironmentScience & Environmental Health Networ…RETHINK ENERGY FLORIDA INC: $26,500 · Environment+2 more: $20,000 · EnvironmentNew York Communities Organizing Fund Inc: $342,750 · Community ImprovementNew York Communities …COLORADO RISING: $37,611 · Community ImprovementCOLORADO RISING+1 more: $10,000 · Community ImprovementTRADE JUSTICE EDUCATION FUND: $245,000 · InternationalTRADE JUSTICE …CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC: $25,000 · InternationalCENTER FOR INT…Solon Center For Research And Publishing: $250,000 · Arts & CultureSolon Center …NO CMP CORRIDOR: $95,000 · OtherNO CMP CORRIDORGreen Advocacy Project: $90,000 · OtherGreen Advocacy P…CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT LAB EDUCATION FUND: $18,000 · OtherCITIZEN ENGAGEME…PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY INC: $10,000 · OtherCLOUD MOUNTAIN FOUNDATION: $53,355 · OtherCLOUD MOUNTAIN F…PROGRESSNOW COLORADO: $25,000 · OtherPROGRESSNOW COLO…+1 more: $5,000 · OtherOil Change International Inc: $113,333 · Public BenefitCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $92,500 · Animals
Environment$685,233Community Improvement$390,361International$270,000Arts & Culture$250,000Other$296,355Public Benefit$113,333Animals$92,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNew York Communities Organizing Fund Inc: $342,750 over 8y, 3.7% of budgetFOOD & WATER ACTION FUND: $250,000 over 2y, 9.9% of budgetSolon Center For Research And Publishing: $250,000 over 2y, 35% of budgetTRADE JUSTICE EDUCATION FUND: $245,000 over 1y, 40% of budgetFRACK ACTION FUND INC: $188,333 over 2y, 24% of budgetCATSKILL MOUNTAINKEEPER INC: $155,400 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetOil Change International Inc: $113,333 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $92,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCLOUD MOUNTAIN FOUNDATION: $53,355 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetScience & Environmental Health Network: $45,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetCOLORADO RISING: $37,611 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetRETHINK ENERGY FLORIDA INC: $26,500 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetPROGRESSNOW COLORADO: $25,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetCENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Sustainable Markets F…The Schmidt Family Fo…Rockefeller Philanthr…United States Energy …Amalgamated Charitabl…Climate Imperative Fo…Wallace Global Fund IITides FoundationNew Venture FundAdvocacy Action Fund …Working Families Orga…Energy Action Fund
Sustainable Markets FoundationNY24.1× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sustainable Markets Foundation · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · United States Energy Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Climate Imperative Foundation · Wallace Global Fund II · Tides Foundation · New Venture Fund · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Working Families Organization Inc · Energy Action 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 Food & Water Watch funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Food & Water Watch. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Rethink Energy Florida Inc: 0% of 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 · 0–10%
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 22 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Food & Water Watch’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