· Public charity
Green Advocacy Project
To accelerate the transition to an economy based on renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| See Grant Statement | $9,654,900 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY18–18, $89k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +97% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
50 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 49 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- CFCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION4× · 2018–2021 · $1.8M · revenue +97%
- LOLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC3× · 2018–2020 · $1.3M · revenue +144%
- FWFOOD & WATER ACTION FUND4× · 2018–2021 · $911k · revenue +275%
Funded once
- AVAMERICA VOTES ACTION FUNDone grant, 2020 · $250k
- RLRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP NMone grant, 2018 · $206k
- TVTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTERone grant, 2020 · $202k · revenue -34%
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.
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.
ENVIROVOTERS ED FUND is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the quality of the environment for all Californians. ENVIROVOTERS ED FUND works to build the capacity of environmental organizations by developing and providing…
The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
The american conservation coalition inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to building the conservative environmental movement.
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…
The climate equity action fund (ceaf) works hand-in-hand with community-based partners in critical states across the country to secure and sustain policy wins for climate and clean energy. building on over a decade of trust with leading…
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.
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…
Advocate for and reform to climate policies at the national and state level.
Driving american jobs and competitiveness by leveraging our cleaner economy and enabling u.s. manufacturers to lead in advanced energy technologies.
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.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Inc and the most unlike its peers is Yes for Portland Clean Energy Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 19 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
87 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. 87 of the 173 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 CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
- Who funds FOOD & WATER ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds TIDES ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ACTION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB ↗
- Who funds NEW VIRGINIA MAJORITY ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
- Who funds Earthworks Action Fund ↗
- Who funds STATE DEMOCRACY ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds TAKEACTION MINNESOTA ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL VOTER PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds CITIZEN VOICE ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds VOTE REV ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds Yes for Portland Clean Energy Fund ↗
- Who funds TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds WESTERN CONSERVATION ACTION ↗
- Who funds BOLD ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds Nebraska Conservation Voters ↗
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: League of Conservation Voters Inc · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Tides Advocacy · America Votes · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Energy Action Fund · North Fund · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Women Donors Network Action
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 Green Advocacy Project 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.
- Columbia Riverkeeper — 1% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Green Advocacy Project?
Find your warmest path to Green Advocacy Project 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.