· 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 9 grants below total $375,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $403,751 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $28,751 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k7 grants · $178k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $198k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| CLEAN WATER FUND | $10,000 |
| HEALTHY GULF | $10,000 |
| WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS | $10,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 83% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +107% since the first grant, against -23% for the ones you 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 49% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $193k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- NYNew York Communities Organizing Fund Inc8× · 2017–2025 · $343k · revenue +107%
- SCSolon Center For Research And Publishing2× · 2019–2020 · $250k · revenue +524% · 35% of their budget
- FWFOOD & WATER ACTION FUND2× · 2019–2021 · $250k · revenue +274%
Funded once
- TJTRADE JUSTICE EDUCATION FUNDone grant, 2021 · $245k · revenue -23% · 40% of their budget
- NCNO CMP CORRIDORone grant, 2020 · $95k
- GAGreen Advocacy Projectgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $90k · revenue +108%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
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…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
CRI is an international climate and human rights monitoring and advocacy organization dedicated to preventing climate change and human rights abuses.
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…
To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.
Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.
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.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
Rogue Climate's mission is to empower Southern Oregon communities most impacted by climate change including low-income, rural, youth, seniors & communities of color, to win climate justice by organizing for clean energy, sustainable jobs &…
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Food & Water Action Fund and 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.
18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, 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; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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 New York Communities Organizing Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds Solon Center For Research And Publishing ↗
- Who funds FOOD & WATER ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds TRADE JUSTICE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds FRACK ACTION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds CATSKILL MOUNTAINKEEPER INC ↗
- Who funds Oil Change International Inc ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC ↗
- Who funds Green Advocacy Project ↗
- Who funds CLOUD MOUNTAIN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Science & Environmental Health Network ↗
- Who funds COLORADO RISING ↗
- Who funds RETHINK ENERGY FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds PROGRESSNOW COLORADO ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC ↗
- Who funds WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CLEAN WATER FUND ↗
- Who funds HEALTHY GULF ↗
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.
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
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 organization Food & Water Watch 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.
- Rethink Energy Florida Inc — 0% of income from government
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 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.